This is Why I Support the Death Penalty

[Aramike]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525441,00.html

NEW ORLEANS — Authorities say a 17-year-old teenager was charged with aggravated rape and first-degree murder of an 8-month-old child.

Animals like this do not justify the expense of keeping them alive for years on end. Should this person be proven undeniably guilty, he should be swiftly put down like a rabid dog, in my opinion.

[August]

proven undeniably guilty

Therein lies the rub. For every one of these there are 100 whose guilt is not so firmly established.

[sunvalleyslim]

August,
If you believe that there are a hundred to one that they're innocent......Dude you're smokin your socks......:nope:

[Aramike]

Therein lies the rub. For every one of these there are 100 whose guilt is not so firmly established.Point taken, although I believe that sunvalleyslim also has a point - the ratio is probably reversed (1 out of 100 whose guilt is questionable). Frankly, I find the moral dilemma to be similar regarding just locking people up in the first place - I'd hate to think of the horror of being wrongly imprisoned.

That is indeed the only argument against the death penalty that leaves me torn.

However, the fact that there's an overall margin of error does not dismiss the fact that, on a case-by-case basis, certain cases have no margin of error whatsoever. Those are the cases where I support capital punishment. A lot of times people will posit that the legal system isn't perfect, and they are correct. Yet, a single case does not represent the system as a whole. Furthermore, our legal system is based upon the single case.

I do believe that irrefutable proof must be the standard for any and all executions. I also believe that the penalty of death is warranted in many cases - especially in the rape and murder of an 8 month old baby.

[OneToughHerring]

How about a drunk driver who kills two people, say, a mother and a baby. Should that drunk be snuffed out?

[Stealth Hunter]

How about a drunk driver who kills two people, say, a mother and a baby. Should that drunk be snuffed out?

Most definitely. That's manslaughter after all.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I just can't understand this whole "death-penalty" bent. It seems inefficient and silly to me. How does the death penalty repair the damage done to people and families and society? Where is the penance?
For the most heinous crimes, in which the defendant is proven guilty by irrefutable evidence, life in a labor camp holds a lot more punitive potential.

Of course, this must be done properly in order to ensure effectiveness. For starters, it needs to be in a suitably harsh climate, way too hot or way too cold. Next, it would need to produce goods that could actually generate a profit, or at least offset state expenses so that reimbursements could be paid to the victims. Something labor-intensive, though, like making highway barriers manually.
Then, it would need to have an organizational structure similar to Marine boot camp; hardly a moment of peace, bad food (minimum calorie intake, preferably in the form of tasteless paste), little sleep, constant surveillance, stiff penalties for any infraction. It's good enough for our troops, so it should be good enough for our worst criminals, right?
Finally, no amenities. No tobacco, no visitation, no parcels, no internet, no TV, no radio, no newspapers, no anything. And 7-day workweeks, 8 hrs a day (more might be considered cruel and unusual)

After a few years in that grinder they'll wish they were dead, and they will be, after a miserable life.

What does the death penalty do, anyway? If there is a hell and evil people are sent to it, burning for eternity is going to be just as miserable and endless at the end of a life in the camp. If there is no afterlife, the death penalty just grants the criminal painless oblivion, whereas their victims live with a lifetime of pain. What kind of justice is that?

Best of all, if they are later exonerated, they could be paid a healthy compensation for their wrongful imprisonment by the state, and we can get the money for that by simply saving the money it would have cost to execute them in the present system.

Naturally, this is almost completely implausible in the U.S. due to the number of judgements and rulings that would have to be overturned, but I still think it's a good idea.

[Stealth Hunter]

I just can't understand this whole "death-penalty" bent. It seems inefficient and silly to me.

Why?

How does the death penalty repair the damage done to people and families and society?

It doesn't replace the person lost, but it removes the person who took their life and can at least put the minds of the family to rest with the knowledge that the murderer no longer lives. And death is the ultimatum because of the fear it inflicts upon the criminal in most cases. It MAKES them sorry.

Where is the penance?

The criminal's fear.

For the most heinous crimes, in which the defendant is proven guilty by irrefutable evidence, life in a labor camp holds a lot more punitive potential.

Depends on what type of labor camp you're referencing. If you mean a Communist-Russian labor camp with no hygienic stations, horrid food, and terrible conditions, then I would agree. It has plenty of ups to it. Taxpayers wouldn't have to pour money into the system to support these bastards (as we do now) and the nation as a whole would benefit from their work more than it would suffer (somewhat like the penal system the French had set up during the 19th and 20th centuries; you've seen Papillon, I assume).

Unfortunately, labor camps will never be established for political reasons. We'd look like demons to the outside world.

Of course, this must be done properly in order to ensure effectiveness. For starters, it needs to be in a suitably harsh climate, way too hot or way too cold.

Is it really a labor camp then? I mean, they normally exist where the country needs them (where resources exist and can be harvested by the prisoners, for example).

Next, it would need to produce goods that could actually generate a profit, or at least offset state expenses so that reimbursements could be paid to the victims. Something labor-intensive, though, like making highway barriers manually.

Disregard my last paragraph. Glad to hear it would still fit the definition of a labor camp.:yeah:

Then, it would need to have an organizational structure similar to Marine boot camp; hardly a moment of peace, bad food (minimum calorie intake, preferably in the form of tasteless paste), little sleep, constant surveillance, stiff penalties for any infraction. It's good enough for our troops, so it should be good enough for our worst criminals, right?

I agree here. There would also need to be places where discipline could be carried out, preferably a public area. If a prisoner was caught say trying to escape, he should be taken up onto a stage-like area in front of all the prisoners and have his legs broken, or be beaten severely and denied medical care.

If one caused trouble in general, they should be thrown into a small building and locked in for days on end, denied of all the basics (save for half a loaf a bread per day, a bottle of water per week, and no proper furnishings, such as beds or toilets; rations could also be determined by the camp's warden and could be based off the severity of the infraction). If one assaulted a guard, that same stage area should be the location to shoot the assailant.

It's harsh, intimidating, and effective.

Finally, no amenities. No tobacco, no visitation, no parcels, no internet, no TV, no radio, no newspapers, no anything. And 7-day workweeks, 8 hrs a day (more might be considered cruel and unusual).

Agreed here. Perhaps make it 12 hours a day on the working time to make even higher profits and the prisoners more miserable, but 8 is just as good.

Do you think the possession of amenities should be made an offense punishable by time in "the hole"?

After a few years in that grinder they'll wish they were dead, and they will be, after a miserable life.

Or better yet they WILL die in the camps. We might be able to find something to do with the bodies as well. Perhaps donate them to science.

What does the death penalty do, anyway?

Liquidates criminals, lol.

If there is a hell and evil people are sent to it, burning for eternity is going to be just as miserable and endless at the end of a life in the camp. If there is no afterlife, the death penalty just grants the criminal painless oblivion, whereas their victims live with a lifetime of pain. What kind of justice is that?

The justice is that they will feel a fear no one innocent can ever possibly feel when it comes time for them to die, and society will be rid of another trouble maker for good. They will have regret for what they've done, they will wish things could be different, and they will have to suffer from the pain of not knowing what will happen to them. Not only that, but it intimidates people on the outside to obey the law or face death for their actions.

If there's a hell, then good. They burn forever in it.

I personally don't think there is, and because I'm a down-to-Earth person and don't think about what is not a certainty, I think they should be executed because I KNOW the last things they'll feel forever will be too terrible to conceive for we citizens in good standing. That is the very substance of the death penalty. Fright, anger, helplessness, and remorse; I'm aware of that much. But what it would feel like to actually experience these things all at once and not just examine the words and ponder their meanings and what it would be like to feel them all at once is something I shall never go through.

Best of all, if they are later exonerated, they could be paid a healthy compensation for their wrongful imprisonment by the state, and we can get the money for that by simply saving the money it would have cost to execute them in the present system.

Agreed on the exoneration part (I think they should be given a little more than money for their time wrongfully served), but not so much on the execution part.

In my opinion on what should happen after a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, they should spend one day in their jail cell. The next day, they are to be taken out into either a courtyard with either concrete walls or a special sand mound or a concrete room and will be shot. It's cheap, it doesn't take a lot of time, and it's effective.

Naturally, this is almost completely implausible in the U.S. due to the number of judgements and rulings that would have to be overturned,

Not only that, but there would be a backlash from the rest of the world on it. It would not be a healthy political thing to do.

but I still think it's a good idea.

So do I.

Unfortunately, people aren't as strict as they used to be anymore and seem to have weaker stomachs for crueler punishments. The justice system of the United States anymore seems to focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment.:nope:

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't think the 100 to 1 ratio was innocent vs guilt - but rather 100 "most likely did it" to the 1 "undeniably proven guilty". Remember that the standard in our court system is termed "reasonable doubt", not "without any doubt".

Here is the thing with the death penalty. I have no issue applying it on cases where it is called for, and guilt is clear, or admitted to. However, there are a number of cases where people were proven innocent after they were executed. That has to be a concern.

However, life imprisonment is not a good option either. It costs the taxpayers money to keep these people up, they do nothing constructive, nor - with a life sentence - can they be rehabilitated. After all - why rehabilitate when your never going to see the light of day. Its a joke.

The idea of making criminals work is fine, except that "work camps" have been sued numerous times and are just about non-existant now (with a few notable exceptions) because it is claimed that such is "cruel and unusual punishment". The conditions you guys describe above would fit that easily under today's standards, and thus would never be allowed.

My view on this is real simple actually. If there is DNA or other proof, there is no such thing as a "life" sentence. Its death - in any capital (aka the victim died) case. The defendant has one year incarcerated to prepare and file the appropriate appeals. At the end of that one year time, his opportunity to file is frozen, the existing appeals are allowed to proceed, and if he is still condemned at the end of the process, the sentence is carried out in a timely manner - aka 1 week from the final judicial decision. He has that one week to make clemency requests to the governor of his state, as well as settle his affairs through family as needed, and make his peace with his maker if he so chooses.

Is it perfect? No - but no system is. However, keeping criminals on the taxpayers dimes (actually its tens of thousands of dollars a year), while they tie up the legal system will every bull**** appeal they can, enjoying cable tv, a free gym (whereas most law abiding citizens have to pay to use one), free health care, free legal representation, etc....... - is a travesty.

If your in for 10 - fine - you should be MADE to be doing things that show your rehabilitating - training etc. If you don't - you don't get out until you show you HAVE done what is necessary to be productive and responsible in society. If your in for life - then your not getting out - so why not go ahead and decrease the cost and stupidity your continued existence puts on society?

And yes - drunk drivers that kill should also get the death penalty. Sorry - but you chose to drink and drive and thus kill someone, just as a robber chose to pull a trigger during a holdup.

[Skybird]

"Death Penalty" is a contradiction in itself. The archaic concept of justice was to bring balance back to cosmos by taking an eye for an eye. By modern definition, a penalty is a measurement or an aversive stimulus that is imposed onto an offender to either take revenge by making him suffering (a form of personal satisfaction by seeing the other suffering, for which it is a precondition that he lives), or to make him altering his attitude and cognitions so that he will not show the behavior or deed again in the future ( for which he also must live). the latter is the modern understanding of what western legal systems should be about. If that is always a realistic intention, is something completely different.

Eventually, I accept the execution of certain kinds of offenders as a preemptive measurement. This is with regard to offenders whose imprisonment causes an ongoing major and severe threat to innocents and/or the general public, or who are not being stopped from continuing their criminal behavior when being in prison. Two of several possible examples are a drug baron who runs his cartel from prison due to corrupt police, or a terrorist fanatic whose imprisonment is taken as an excuse by his still free comrades to commit crimes in order to blackmail the state and enforce his release from prison.

Things like slaughter by passion, rape, fleeing the scence of an accident where one has caused the death of people, chuld abuse, are not qualifying for my intention when to execute somebody. Such people should serve their living penalty.

I am against "suspended penalties" in principle. I am also principally against alcohol being accepted as a "mitigating" circumstance.

the remarks that somebody made above above on executing a car driver when causing a lethal crash, have a personal dimension for me. Almost twnty years ago, my girlfriend, companion and fiancé got killed by a ghost driver who drove under influence of alcohol. He got away with an extremely mild penalty, because courts consider people not to be responsible for the ammont of alcohol they drink - this is the conclusion from the mitigating penalties in case of alcohol involved. I have never fogiven neither the court, nor the driver. But I do not wish him to be executed, and would object to it.

And in the early 70s, the sister of my mother, 18 years, just married and pregnant, got killed with her husband on the autobahn - again due to a drunk ghostdriver. And again he got away with a very mild penalty. Neither me nor my mother wished the man to be executed, and we would object to it.

Both men were allowed to drive again within months, and got away with low-medium money penalties. Eventual prison sentences were suspended completely. -

Wo will complain when me and my family do not trust such a system anymore?

We have laws. Far too man yof them, with too many exceptions for rules, and too much disconnection from reality in the name of some distorted form of pedagogic attitude, eduaction, resocialisation, and humanism. It would be enough if we filter the laws, delete many of them, use the one remaining in full, and understand that lawyers defending their client should not see it as their duty to get him out no matter what he has done, but that the facts of the deed should speak for itself, the defense should be done by the client himself - and the only duty of the lawyer is to monitor that basic rules for court proceedings are not getting violated. It is my conviction that a defender's duty is not to defend his client. He is more a referee than a defender who should try every trick and every cheating of the rules to get his man out no matter weather he is guilty or not. The defnder as well as the rest of the court should help to find the truth. and if the client is guilty, the defender'S job is not to minimise the penalty, but to cooperate with the court to find the correct penalty.

Many people today perceive court sentences today as too mild, or too injust. A legal system where the outcome is influenced by the ammount of money a client can invest into his defender(s), where anybody can sue everybody over the most ridiculous claims, where defenders are actively engaged in distorting the process of finding justice, where procedural questions are seen as important ifd not as more deceisive than the essence of content, and penalties time and again get minimised and suspended over intention od education and a perverted sense of humanism that wills to put parts of the public at risk far too easyminded over claims of resocialisation (no matter if that has a realistic perspective or not) - such a legal system has serious deficits and suffers from extremely self-damaging distortions. No wonder then that it falls into disrepute.

Three years ago a junkey tried to stab me on open street, unprovoked, en passant, totally surprising. I got a deep cut on the right waist. Only my former martial arts trainign and reflexes helped me wo react still fast enough to deflect his attack, for he aimed at my throat. I took him out in a short burst of hard, brutal chops and kicks, and put him out of action within seconds. He received several injuries and fractures. I later learned that he was no unknown to the police, and he was stoned at the time of the attack. Nevertheless he sued me for using "excessive force", while he tried to kill me. Okay, the real scandal is that such a case would not be filed by a private person, but is brought to public prosecutor'S office where it is then decided whether or not this office launches a case at court or not. The scandal is that they found a state attorney who was willing to accept it to be handed to the court. If later the defnder of that junkey would not obviously convionced his client to give up that counter battle and convince the state attorney to withdraw the legal proceedings against me, I would have been the accused offender at court for having dared to defend my life against a sudden and unprovoked attack by a junkey.

Who will complain when I do not trust such a system anymore?

My father is a sport rifleman, he shoots small cllibre pistol and precision air pistol. In his club their are also some policemen training. One of them who is with the criminal police, once gave him privately a tip. If he ever were to confront a burglar in his appartmenet and would be in need to shoot, he should not wound him, but should make sure he shoots him to death with one shot if possible. Else the chances would be extrmeely high that he would be sued at court and would face a penalty as severe (or even more!) as that for the burglar.

Again, who will complain when I do not trust such a system anymore?


However, to all these problems, a general acceptance for a self-contradicting death "penalty" is nom solution. Also statistical anaylsis has shown time and again that death "penalties" do not have a deterring effect, since many crimes commited are done in a state of aroused emotions, social context that cannot be escaped, and the always present assumption that one would not be caught anyway. Irrational factors like this cannot be just "countered" by rational arguments and rational appeals and rational proceedings and deterrance - thats why they are irrational. You need to directly influence and change the irrational factors themselves. Get people out of social contexts that get them into trouble. Get people educated and self-disciplined while they are still young. Reduce the time passing between crime and starting to serve a penlty drastically. No suspended penalties. Alcohol no longer a mitigating excuse. Psychology shows that the more time passes between crime and consequences, the less the chance the object will link the two. the more time passes, and the smaller the penalsiing stimulus is, the less edcuating effect and chnage in the offenders behaviour wou will see. This has been exemplary shown in behaviouristic experiments en masse, you cannot get around this conclusion, no matter your excuse for trying.

They way death "penalty" is handled in some countries today, it is nothing else but a legalised form of collective archaic revenge. And the passion you see on nthe faces of street demonstrators at times, tells something revealing: some people are angry if you give them just panem but not the circensis-part in the quote.

[TDK1044]

I think that any society that truly wants to be referred to as 'civilized' should not be killing people who have been found guilty to the legal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

How many times have we seen DNA prove the innocence of people convicted at a time when DNA testing was not available?

There are certain crimes committed where any normal human being can't begin to understand how anyone could commit such a crime. In my view though, our role should be to remove that individual from society for the rest of his life and to try and learn what, if anything, could have been done in that persons life to prevent the later action that he took.

Simply killing a monster who killed a young child doesn't bring the child back, and it doesn't allow us to learn patterns of early behaviour from the killer that may save the life of another child in the future.

[AngusJS]

The death penalty is a bad idea all around. It assumes complete certainty where no such thing exists. Think of all the people cleared by DNA evidence. I guarantee everyone who prosecuted them was certain they were guilty...until they found out they were innocent. Oops!

Without the death penalty, every injustice committed by the state can at least potentially be righted. With the death penalty, that's not the case. The state has to be 100% right all of the time. When the justice system fails in a capital case, the injustice it has perpetrated cannot be righted - its victim is dead. The death penalty is applied for exactly these situations: someone is wrongly killed by another, and no justice is possible for the victim - he's dead. Why do you want to allow the same thing to happen all over again, except this time at the hands of the state? Apparently, death penalty advocates usually get around this by simply not caring.

Think of all the people cleared by DNA evidence. How many innocent people were killed throughout American history when there was still no such thing? I guess they don't count.

Think of all the problems present in the system: crap eyewitness testimony, false confessions, police tampering with evidence, police lying under oath, police departments that destroy evidence after convictions are obtained, prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense, underfunded public defenders, public defenders who fall asleep during trials... all feeding into an antagonistic process whose result will be decided by a bunch of people who have nothing better to do than sit on a jury (How many of them know about false confessions and the huge problems with eyewitness testimony? How many still don't know about them after they've handed down a guilty verdict in a capital case?).

Humans are fallible. Systems break down. Entrusting such a problematic system with the ability to take someone's life is not a good idea.

If I was the POS mentioned in the first post, I would welcome the death penalty, if I wasn't able to kill myself first that is. Imagine living with yourself after doing something like that. In this case, is it not worse punishment to be sentenced to go live with other animals such as yourself for the rest of your life, rather than have it all end after a few years?

[GoldenRivet]

Dead men do not make good repeat offenders.

living men do.

[TDK1044]

Dead men do not make good repeat offenders.

living men do.


Innocent men who were wrongly killed didn't offend in the first place.

[Schroeder]

I find it a bit odd that all people here are agreeing that killing is morally wrong. But yet some here think that the state has the right to kill. Some of you stated how disgusted they were with those who killed and the way they killed yet they want to kill those people too. So murder is wrong, revenge is right? How do you explain your kids that killing is wrong if even the state can do it and supports it as a legitimate penalty?
And again remember all those who were found innocent AFTER being sentenced to death. If you make a mistake you actually murdered someone yourself.

[Skybird]

I find it a bit odd that all people here are agreeing that killing is morally wrong.

All people agreeing? I do not. I refuse to make an absolute statement about it. In most occasions I find it morally wrong. And on a few occasions I find it morally right. I reject to make "kill!" or "do not kill!" a total, undisputable absolute, because although the decision to kill causes a final, irreversible consequence, ethical assessement of it nevertheless is subjective and anything but infinite, final, and absolute. The deed itself, and what you think about it - are two different things.

I found it horrible and felt very bad for some weeks after I accidentally almost killed a trainee during training two years ago, and hurt him badly. I told the story back then. As a result I quit in that job after just a short time, for it really shook me. It was truly a training-accident.

Nevertheless I can imagine situations when I accept to take somebody's life intentionally, and not having a bad conscience afterwards. However, I do not seek nor wish for such a situation in my life.

It is a circumstance-thing.

[antikristuseke]

I just can't understand this whole "death-penalty" bent. It seems inefficient and silly to me. How does the death penalty repair the damage done to people and families and society? Where is the penance?
For the most heinous crimes, in which the defendant is proven guilty by irrefutable evidence, life in a labor camp holds a lot more punitive potential.

Of course, this must be done properly in order to ensure effectiveness. For starters, it needs to be in a suitably harsh climate, way too hot or way too cold. Next, it would need to produce goods that could actually generate a profit, or at least offset state expenses so that reimbursements could be paid to the victims. Something labor-intensive, though, like making highway barriers manually.
Then, it would need to have an organizational structure similar to Marine boot camp; hardly a moment of peace, bad food (minimum calorie intake, preferably in the form of tasteless paste), little sleep, constant surveillance, stiff penalties for any infraction. It's good enough for our troops, so it should be good enough for our worst criminals, right?
Finally, no amenities. No tobacco, no visitation, no parcels, no internet, no TV, no radio, no newspapers, no anything. And 7-day workweeks, 8 hrs a day (more might be considered cruel and unusual)

After a few years in that grinder they'll wish they were dead, and they will be, after a miserable life.

What does the death penalty do, anyway? If there is a hell and evil people are sent to it, burning for eternity is going to be just as miserable and endless at the end of a life in the camp. If there is no afterlife, the death penalty just grants the criminal painless oblivion, whereas their victims live with a lifetime of pain. What kind of justice is that?

Best of all, if they are later exonerated, they could be paid a healthy compensation for their wrongful imprisonment by the state, and we can get the money for that by simply saving the money it would have cost to execute them in the present system.

Naturally, this is almost completely implausible in the U.S. due to the number of judgements and rulings that would have to be overturned, but I still think it's a good idea.


Well I'll be damned, this is pretty much how i see things.

[FIREWALL]

There is a young man here being charged with 3 counts of 2nd degree murder in a drunk driveing case.

To stiff of charges you say ?

[Aramike]

I do whole-heartedly agree in the idea of a harsh labor camp (something just short of gulag style). However, understanding how that won't happen, I believe there are certain crimes so brutal where the criminal has forfeit his/her humanity. Such a crime is the rape and murder of an 8 MONTH old girl. To lock this person up acknowledges his right to live, and he should have none.I find it a bit odd that all people here are agreeing that killing is morally wrong. But yet some here think that the state has the right to kill. Some of you stated how disgusted they were with those who killed and the way they killed yet they want to kill those people too. So murder is wrong, revenge is right? How do you explain your kids that killing is wrong if even the state can do it and supports it as a legitimate penalty?
And again remember all those who were found innocent AFTER being sentenced to death. If you make a mistake you actually murdered someone yourself. I do not believe that killing, under all circumstances, is morally wrong. I don't believe that anyone here has said that.

Further, I don't see the death penalty as "revenge" - I believe, properly applied, that it is justice.

I don't believe you can reduce the argument to teaching one's children that all killing is wrong, as you're suggesting. For instance, if someone broke into a home and threatened a family, preemptively killing that person isn't morally wrong.

Also, the state absolutely has the right to make certain decisions over life and death, as empowered by the people of that state. War is a common application of this. A police commander ordering a sniper to shoot someone holding hostages is another.

In conclusion, to simply say that "killing is morally wrong" oversimplifies the subject a great deal.

[Aramike]

The death penalty is a bad idea all around. It assumes complete certainty where no such thing exists.There are absolutely complete certainties in life. Either something happened or it didn't. The key is to make our policies incredibly stringent in order to assure that accidents don't happen.

The fact is, just because that we may have been wrong previously does not neccessarily mean we're going to be wrong in the future. Furthermore, I do not in any way condone leniency for REAL criminals because of mistakes made regarding innocents.

Let's say that a murder was caught on several different surveillance cameras, and the perp is ID'ed through that and fingerprint analysis, along with witness identification. I'd say that would be pretty airtight.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

There are absolutely complete certainties in life. Either something happened or it didn't. The key is to make our policies incredibly stringent in order to assure that accidents don't happen.

The fact is, just because that we may have been wrong previously does not neccessarily mean we're going to be wrong in the future. Furthermore, I do not in any way condone leniency for REAL criminals because of mistakes made regarding innocents.

Let's say that a murder was caught on several different surveillance cameras, and the perp is ID'ed through that and fingerprint analysis, along with witness identification. I'd say that would be pretty airtight.

Well, sure. But how good is the resolution of the camera, are you sure the fingerprinting was all done right, and witnesses ... well, we all know them...

Now, here's a pipe dream of mine: How about a system where the prosecutor and judge are held personally responsible after recommending / sentencing* a death penalty?** If the case is somehow overturned on appeal (or massively reduced, say from Capital down to not just life imprisonment, but something like 5 years or less), and the ex-convict has already gone on the shock chair, then the prosecutor and judge is tried for homicide (because then that is what it is) - probably voluntary manslaughter would be the closest charge. The State can't really be punished for such mistakes, but the individuals most responsible still can. They probably won't get death itself, but they will be found guilty (there's no doubt they did it), and the penalty is mitigated similar to a person who killed with mistaken will.

*Yes, it is generally the jury that decides whether one is guilty, but AFAIK it is generally the judge that decides on the sentencing.

Basically, the judge and prosecutor's pleas will consist of mitigation and re-justifying exactly why they believed the ex-convict was guilty and why he was so guilty he deserved the death penalty, now on the "wrong" side of the curve. The final penalty depends on how far off they are. If it is clear the case just wasn't that good ...

*I've always had an opinion where prosecutors and judges (including juries) should really (in a deontological sense) be held responsible for any cases they get wrong (after all, someone clearly got hurt by your mistake here, and it clearly is no passion-of-the-moment thing). Of course, that quickly runs into the utilitarian problem that they will probably start to be very reluctant to prosecute / convict even clear criminals for fear they'll be wrong, so it is not really a practical idea, but that problem is minimized if such is brought only to cases involving extreme punishment.

OK, that's a pretty unrealistic idea. However, when you recommend the death penalty, will you STILL honestly risk it if the system above is active, and you will be held responsible (and probably seriously punished) if it turns out (as proven by a appeal court) you are wrong?

IMO, if you aren't, then you haven't even really convinced yourself it is necessary in a particular case.

[Schroeder]

@Skybird and Aramike

I think I didn't express myself properly before. I meant if you tell your kids that the sentenced person has done something evil by killing someone how do you tell them that killing this very person is a just act? I think the killing of someone can only be a last resort if no other option guarantees the safety of the population (emergency killing in a hostage situation, getting rid of cruel dictators who you can't get in any different way, etc).
Remember by executing someone you are doing the same thing that the criminal did. Maybe in a more "humane" way (if there is something like that) but the result is the same nonetheless.
Besides there is still the problem that not all cases are crystal clear. Mistakes WILL happen as they happened before. Maybe not so many but still I would say that even just one innocent in the death row is one too much for supporting this kind of punishment.

Just my 2c.

[Aramike]

@Skybird and Aramike

I think I didn't express myself properly before. I meant if you tell your kids that the sentenced person has done something evil by killing someone how do you tell them that killing this very person is a just act? I think the killing of someone can only be a last resort if no other option guarantees the safety of the population (emergency killing in a hostage situation, getting rid of cruel dictators who you can't get in any different way, etc).
Remember by executing someone you are doing the same thing that the criminal did. Maybe in a more "humane" way (if there is something like that) but the result is the same nonetheless.
Besides there is still the problem that not all cases are crystal clear. Mistakes WILL happen as they happened before. Maybe not so many but still I would say that even just one innocent in the death row is one too much for supporting this kind of punishment.

Just my 2c.There's a huge moral difference between the criminal act of murder and an execution based upon the preponderance of the evidence as set forth in the guidelines created by a society (the same guidelines that would allow killing in an emergency situation).

Saying that it would be difficult to to teach the difference to a child is misleading as you already suggested that you COULD teach the diffence in certain cases. You're just fading the distinction in the circumstance that supports your beliefs - which is no more right or wrong than any other circumstance, including emergency actions.

Personally, however, I find it difficult to see how you can find a parallel being a criminal killing someone and society executing that person after a trial in front of a jury of their peers, an exhaustive appeals process, all according to the rules set in place by that society. From where I stand, there is no moral equivocation there. First of all, the criminal was proactive in committing the crime - society is REACTIVE in committing the punishment - which is a risk the murderer accepts should he decide to remove another person's life.

I have no problem telling my children that bad people are killed because they have done bad things. It is the REASON, not the ACTION that determines morality.

[Aramike]

Well, sure. But how good is the resolution of the camera, are you sure the fingerprinting was all done right, and witnesses ... well, we all know them...One must understand that there's a huge difference between what can earn a conviction now versus in previous years. If there is any doubt at all about someone's guilt, they shouldn't be convicted in the first place.

Also, we should consider real life rather than theory here. In states where there is the death penalty, it is not as though they are just going to town executing murderers. Rather, the punishment is typically reserved for the worst of the worst.

In addition, consider that (as far as I recall, and I may be completely wrong on this) the last person wrongly executed by the justice system in this country was in 1985, and "wrongly" is only an allegation. That means that person would have to have been convicted in the 60's or 70s. Surely we've made progress since then.

[CastleBravo]

The death penalty as applied by the several states is only for capital crimes, where premeditation can be proven. No one is executed for self defense or so called crimes of passion.

There is currently federal law which permits the death penalty for those convicted of killing/murdering governmet employees. Beyond that death penalty cases are very rare.

[Steel_Tomb]

The thing with labour camps as someone said is that you have to pay for them. Anyone who has committed a crime worthy of such extreme measures as the death penalty should just be snuffed out. Otherwise we have to pay for them to continue their sorry existence breathing air that would otherwise be used by normal people. I support the death penalty in certain circumstances, and such measures would only be taken in the case of a violent murder proven by substancial forensic evidence supported by witness statements... or a crime that whilst didn't kill the victem, left such traumatic phycological scars that the victem couldn't continue normal life. At present people in prison go back there because its a holiday camp, free gym's, good accomodation... they get f**king games consoles and plasma TV's now. There is no deterrance to crime. If people thought that they could be killed for commiting violient crime then they might bloody well think against it, and act like a civilised human being instead of the scum we have wondering our streets at the moment.

[Skybird]

@Skybird and Aramike

I think I didn't express myself properly before. I meant if you tell your kids that the sentenced person has done something evil by killing someone how do you tell them that killing this very person is a just act? I think the killing of someone can only be a last resort if no other option guarantees the safety of the population (emergency killing in a hostage situation, getting rid of cruel dictators who you can't get in any different way, etc).

If you read again what I tried to express and gave examples for in post #10, you will see that I do not see it that much different than you do when talking of last resorts.

Remember by executing someone you are doing the same thing that the criminal did. Maybe in a more "humane" way (if there is something like that) but the result is the same nonetheless.
No. Motivation counts, and it is different motivations for the criminal, and the victim acting in self-defence, or the law enforcment or a judge acting according to the law.

Law also considers motivations. In German laws we have the conception of a crime committed for lower motives (= Verbrechen aus niederen Beweggründen), which means that the crime is considered to be even more serious than the same crime rated without that "seal of malice", and a more severe penalty must be spoken out - for example that early release from prison is explicitly ruled out, and any penalty must be the maximum allowed by law.

Also, state of mind and emotions matter in doing a deed, both legal and illegal. I would even say it matters most.

Besides there is still the problem that not all cases are crystal clear. Mistakes WILL happen as they happened before. Maybe not so many but still I would say that even just one innocent in the death row is one too much for supporting this kind of punishment.

That is true, and I fully accept the argument ofr too many death penalties that have been proven to have been wrong - I haven given it myself in earlier debates over death penalty and showed some statistics (that can be easily found via Google). However, if you read again what I wrote, you see that I argued against the "death penalty", and that I gave a totally different understanding of when the execution of a criminal eventually is justifiable. Death as a regular penalty in cases of "ordinary" crime (to cut it short and not writing a long novel of explanation) I explicitly excluded. The two-word term "death penalty" is a contradiction in itself.

[GoldenRivet]

Innocent men who were wrongly killed didn't offend in the first place.

There is an appeals process.

they have X number of times to appeal their sentence and can serve X number of years in order for the defense to accumulate evidence which will clear their name.

Im not saying execute them right when the gavel bangs.

but there is no point in any of us paying millions of dollars to keep scum like this alive in a prison for 25 years.

[August]

but there is no point in any of us paying millions of dollars to keep scum like this alive in a prison for 25 years.

I dunno GR. I don't think I'd really want cost to be a factor in sentencing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Alright, lets me see if I can put it easy points so they can be dealt with in a way that doesn't require linguistic playings....

The death penalty is not - and never has been - a punishment that is successful to dissuade a criminal from committing his capital crime. Contrary to what some death penalty advocates try and sing - its simply not factual. Most who choose to murder have lost the capability to value their own life, and thus they fail to value the life of others.

One can make the argument that its INTENT is that - but its effectiveness can be shown to be nil in the face of history. Look at every treasonous act committed by people to overthrow nobility, and you can see that the death penalty has NEVER been successful as a deterrent.

Thats one argument off the table.

Next is the issue of "moral" authority to kill. Well, currently it resides in the State, put there by society. You might not like it, but you have the choice to be active and try to change it - or not. The State is empowered - by the people - to judge guilt or innocence through a process. That process is SUPPOSED to be blind - and while one could argue back or forth if it is or not, the moral authority comes from society - so don't blame the state for what you have allowed to be put into place. The state holds that mandate at the will of the people, and if you doubt it - look what happens when a state's citizenry speak on the issue - for or against. You see moratoriums put in place - or lifted - at the will of the people. The state simply applies the law - the people are responsible for it. Like it or not. So if you don't like the "blood on your hands", then do something about it. But claiming that a State lacks the authority to act on the will of its society is a false argument. Another one bites the dust...

Thirdly - the question of when or if a capital crime deserves the death penalty. Again - justice in its purest form is blind. Think of the statue - a woman, blindfolded - with scales. The cost to the victim - was their life ended. Justice is for the criminal to suffer the same as the victim. Call it an eye for an eye if you want - but it is how we - as society - have said we want justice to be served. Yet killing in the way the victim died is often horrendous. So, that often would call for cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, in the interest of justice with some mercy - though not absolvement - a criminals life is ended in a manner that is - most of the time - much more peaceful than that the victim had to endure. This is the definition of justice with mercy for society. Is it warranted? According to just about every moral system ever codified, yes.

Lastly you have the issue of the innocent that pay the ultimate price. I once was told by a friend who was a defense attorney - that he would rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man in jail. That is a wonderful ideal, but we do not live in a utopian society. If we did, there would be no guilty - and all would be innocent - thus the question would be moot. So you have to consider not only the loss to the individual - but also to the rest of society if you allow 100 guilty to go free.

An innocent death is a tragedy. I recognize that and it saddens me to the core. Yet the DOJ's data says recidivism for violent felons was last closely tracked at 67.5%. So basically you let 100 murderers go to spare one innocent man - and guess what - you just killed 67 or 68 more people..... 1 innocent life - or 67? The system is NOT perfect, and should be reviewed regularly. However, the idea that the cost to society is higher to make a mistake and execute an innocent than it is to let murderers do free - is demonstratably flawed. I wish that my friend was around to argue the point, but one of the clients he got off on a murder charge later was responsible for his death....... So - its more than just statistics. He was a damned good man with a wife and kids - and didn't deserve to die just because he knew too much for a paranoid murderer to be comfortable sleeping at night.

After taking a deep breath - there is the final issue - the cost to society to keep these in prisons. The data a quick search showed was a study from Virginia - in which the amount was - per prisoner - $24,888 every year. Thats an average. Other states are likely similiar. That is more than the welfare cost for a single destitute person in society. See anything wrong with that? The fact that these people are going to continue to stay in jail - for the rest of their natural lives - and assuming a 3.5% annual inflation rate - in 20 years that amount totals 700k - in 40 years the cost to the taxpayers has now been 2.1 million. So its obvious that to continue to house a "lifer" is nothing but a wasted drain on the taxpayer's dime, that does no good. Contrast that with the cost of execution via lethal injection. Per the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - the 2007 cost was $86.08 - so the monetary cost of execution in a timely manner is obviously better than decades incarcerated.

Thus - the death penalty is a valid punishment, but only in the proper instances - and only if it balances the interest of justice for society regarding the common good as well as the rights of the innocent accused.

As I said - no system is perfect. We should reform ours.... but not take the death penalty off the table.

[August]

A couple points Haplo.

The death penalty is not - and never has been - a punishment that is successful to dissuade a criminal from committing his capital crime.

Yes there are people that have ignored the potential consequences of their actions, usually because they don't think they will be caught and sure there are those that don't care either way, but one thing is undeniable. The murderer that has been put to death will never murder again. What other criminal punishment can produce these results?

Yet the DOJ's data says recidivism for violent felons was last closely tracked at 67.5%. So basically you let 100 murderers go to spare one innocent man - and guess what - you just killed 67 or 68 more people.....

You are stretching those statistics way beyond accuracy. First off "violent felons" includes a lot more crimes than just murder and nobody is advocating executing muggers, and recidivism among violent felons does not automatically mean they got out and committed murder so your "guess what" example does not hold water.

[GoldenRivet]

I dunno GR. I don't think I'd really want cost to be a factor in sentencing.


well of course not... cost shouldnt be a factor in sentencing.

but august i want you to think of something.

spoke to a medic today about this very story... ok so here goes because this is gross.

you are a paramedic and you show up on the scene of an "unresponsive infant" call.

you examine the child and he has clearly been physically abused.

but how do you determine he has been "raped"?

the medic's answer was simple but disgusting.

"because the infants horribly mutilated, bloody wound of an anus will be stretched out to about 2 - 2.5 inches across. :dead: "i've seen it before in baby boys AND baby girls." he said

THE GUILTY PARTY...

....DESERVES....

...TO DIE.

im sorry august but you cannot convince me that he deserves to sit in prison and watch TV/ play basketball and eat 3 square meals all day for the rest of his life on anyone's dollar.

:nope:

[August]

im sorry august but you cannot convince me that he deserves to sit in prison and watch TV/ play basketball and eat 3 square meals all day for the rest of his life on anyone's dollar.

:nope:

Of course not, but the DP has never just been applied to such inhuman monsters. It has been repeatedly abused throughout human history by both governments and individuals and as such is just not something I want the state to be engaging in.

However, I do agree with you about living the good life in prison. Rather than giving said monsters a quick clean death, i'd much rather lock them up in a very small cell for the rest of their lives in solitary confinement and withOUT TV, books, newspapers or other amenities. They should have nothing but time to reflect on the crime that put them there and without outside input I think that time will be a heavy burden for them to bear.

In fact I think prison in general should be made as difficult and unpleasant as possible. Convicts should be worked like dogs every waking hour, if for no other reason than to make them so worn out that they won't have the energy left to prey on each other.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why?
Very well, I shall elaborate further.



It doesn't replace the person lost, but it removes the person who took their life and can at least put the minds of the family to rest with the knowledge that the murderer no longer lives. And death is the ultimatum because of the fear it inflicts upon the criminal in most cases. It MAKES them sorry. What good is being sorry for a few months, or even a few years? Make them sorry for the rest of their lives, and then ensure that they are miserable lives.

The criminal's fear.
That hardly seems like penance. I think you overestimate the effects of fear on people who are capable of such atrocious acts.

Depends on what type of labor camp you're referencing. If you mean a Communist-Russian labor camp with no hygienic stations, horrid food, and terrible conditions, then I would agree. It has plenty of ups to it. Taxpayers wouldn't have to pour money into the system to support these bastards (as we do now) and the nation as a whole would benefit from their work more than it would suffer (somewhat like the penal system the French had set up during the 19th and 20th centuries; you've seen Papillon, I assume).
Yes, I've seen Papillon. No, I do not mean something like that or a gulag in the Soviet style (well at least, not totally:DL)
In order to be Constitutional, the camp could not practice anything regarded as cruel and unusual punishment. So all we have to do is find state-sponsored employment with terrible standards, and we have the worst possible environment for them whilst remaining legal through precedent. The military should serve admirably as a precedent for the measures needed. It would be a hard case to argue but it could be done if Congress backed it.
The gulag had doctors and libraries and al kinds of amenities, they were just so bad that no one would ever use them.;)


Unfortunately, labor camps will never be established for political reasons. We'd look like demons to the outside world.
It all depends on how the case is presented, and whether or not it has media support.

I agree here. There would also need to be places where discipline could be carried out, preferably a public area. If a prisoner was caught say trying to escape, he should be taken up onto a stage-like area in front of all the prisoners and have his legs broken, or be beaten severely and denied medical care.
No, you can't break people's legs. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. What you can do is break their spirit, and push them to the limits of physical endurance. Impose very long solitary confinement periods for disobedience and then give them the choice between that and some almost equally unpleasant alternative.

If one caused trouble in general, they should be thrown into a small building and locked in for days on end, denied of all the basics (save for half a loaf a bread per day, a bottle of water per week, and no proper furnishings, such as beds or toilets; rations could also be determined by the camp's warden and could be based off the severity of the infraction). If one assaulted a guard, that same stage area should be the location to shoot the assailant.
That's pretty much what solitary confinement is, but with a little more food, a lot more water and it has to be the same for everyone, with an acceptable caloric intake. But nobody said anything about sleep deprivation:DL

One more thing I forgot to mention; No shooting people. All uses of force should be non-lethal except in the most extreme circumstances. You don't want captives escaping their fate by taking suicidal actions, do you? Truncheons, tazers, and CS gas should serve well enough.

Agreed here. Perhaps make it 12 hours a day on the working time to make even higher profits and the prisoners more miserable, but 8 is just as good. 12 hrs might be hard to pass of as not being cruel and unusual, but if it could be done, I say go for it.

Do you think the possession of amenities should be made an offense punishable by time in "the hole"?
That, or particularly undesireable duties. Perhaps even a few hours of forced excercise.
Or better yet they WILL die in the camps. We might be able to find something to do with the bodies as well. Perhaps donate them to science.
Well, if it's a life sentence in the literal sense, they're going to die in the camps one way or the other. I'm pretty sure using the bodies in any way other than what they desire would be a violation of human rights, though.

Liquidates criminals, lol.
Why liquidate them when you can break them?

The justice is that they will feel a fear no one innocent can ever possibly feel when it comes time for them to die, and society will be rid of another trouble maker for good. They will have regret for what they've done, they will wish things could be different, and they will have to suffer from the pain of not knowing what will happen to them. Not only that, but it intimidates people on the outside to obey the law or face death for their actions.
There are worse things than death. Since death is a fate we all suffer, why not precede it with a hellish life repaying one's debt to society? Which is more punitive in the end?
One of Stalin's favorite tricks was to give a person a tenner or a quarter, and if they survived it, tack on another sentence. While this is not permissable under the U.S. Justice system, there's no rule against insinuating that one's sentence might be commuted, only to dash their hopes on the day before the expect to be released.
A lifetime with a broken spirit and mind is more hellish than a few moments with a broken body.


If there's a hell, then good. They burn forever in it.

I personally don't think there is, and because I'm a down-to-Earth person and don't think about what is not a certainty, I think they should be executed because I KNOW the last things they'll feel forever will be too terrible to conceive for we citizens in good standing. That is the very substance of the death penalty. Fright, anger, helplessness, and remorse; I'm aware of that much. But what it would feel like to actually experience these things all at once and not just examine the words and ponder their meanings and what it would be like to feel them all at once is something I shall never go through.


Well then, if you're a down to Earth person that does not trust uncertainty, you should love the idea of labor camps. It guarantees adequate punishment while the guilty are amongst the living. I take it that you like the idea already.


Agreed on the exoneration part (I think they should be given a little more than money for their time wrongfully served), but not so much on the execution part.
What part of the execution part? The money we would save? I'll admit that remains in doubt until we know exactly how much product we can squeeze out of these felons, but it has to be better than the current system, where they produce virtually nothing.
The death penalty is very expensive and time-consuming, I can only assume that a reversible lifetime labor sentence would not warrant so much debate, and with production factored in, would be cheaper.

In my opinion on what should happen after a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, they should spend one day in their jail cell. The next day, they are to be taken out into either a courtyard with either concrete walls or a special sand mound or a concrete room and will be shot. It's cheap, it doesn't take a lot of time, and it's effective.
Yeah, but we have an appeals system to prevent that. Bear in mind the nature of the U.S. Justice system before you go around shooting people for the first conviction of a transgression.
Labor camps preserve the lives of the innocent until they can be exonerated. The death penalty is irreversible.

Not only that, but there would be a backlash from the rest of the world on it. It would not be a healthy political thing to do.
We already suffer from backlash for retaining the death penalty. I doubt we'd suffer more for using a system that productively incarcerates heinous criminals while not breaching the taboo against cruel and unusual punishment.
Then again, who knows? It depends on the spin.

Unfortunately, people aren't as strict as they used to be anymore and seem to have weaker stomachs for crueler punishments. The justice system of the United States anymore seems to focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment.:nope:

Well yes, it does. Remember that the U.S. Justice system was founded upon the protection of the defendant, rather than furthering the goals of the prosecutor. That is because injustice is so much more harmful than flawed justice.
Rehabilitation is a natural extension of that philosophy, but prone to abuse by those who really deserve terrible punishments.
I think that labor camps, in the context I have presented, are a happy medium. Miserable enough for the guilty, and hopeful enough for the innocent.
The important thing is that they be reserved only for those who are found gulty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of crimes like premeditated murder, rape, slave trafficking, and the like.

[Skybird]

He who thinks he can decide in a state of aroused emotions, is wrong. He gets decided.

Eventually it happens that an offender really realises the wrong he did, and truly regrets and changes. I do not say this happens in all cases, I say that it does happen in some cases. That'S why the door usually should not get closed forever. If such a true change takes place in somebody, he indeed is no longer the person he has been before.

Eventually it happens that the person most affected by a crime - the victim - forgives as well.

And for once I agree with August. Costs should be no argument in sentencing. It would be an extremely dangerous precedence that easily could spread from death penalties to all kind of law cases and penalties in general. You should think twice before accepting that to happen, else we end up with putting people into coffins, linking them to life-support system inside (if that is not too expensive), and stacking the boxes near the garbage dump.

[Skybird]

There is an appeals process.

they have X number of times to appeal their sentence and can serve X number of years in order for the defense to accumulate evidence which will clear their name.

The appeals process very often failed, and still fails. The numbers of death sentences proven to have been wrong, are telltaling. The system does not work precise and flawless enough to allow acceptance of terminal, irreversible "penalties". A residual risk for a false sentence remains in most court cases. That's why one should stay away from making irreversible sentences a regular routine. And I do not accept something like "I can live with 1 innocent killed per 5 criminals executed, that is a good rate, that's the price of justice."

What would be next?

[CaptainHaplo]

August,

I am in agreement that the death penalty has its good points. My issue above regarding its use as a deterent is that the argument holds no water in a historical view. But I touched on recividism later, as you noted. I personally am fine with the death penalty, provided the process itself underwent a review.

As far as my taking statistics inaccurately, I noted that the stats were for violent felons - not murderers. There is no data quickly found on murder recividism. However, that means there is nothing to suggest that the percentage is somehow lower for the MOST VIOLENT kind of crime. Even if we cut that number in half - to 33% - your still talking 33 dead people....

I agree that the numbers could be viewed with some question on how it relates to murder - but even being generous with the idea that murderers that get out are somehow "rehabilitated" at twice the rate as muggers - your still looking at way too many innocents dead.

Simply put - I have no problem with a death for a death - provided the accused is given every REAL opportunity to true, blind justice. My objection to the Death Penalty as it is today - is that the system is currently flawed in a way where its doubtful that the trials in question are truly impartial.

[OneToughHerring]

Well we, along with a whole host of countries, don't have the death penalty and the last I looked our violent crime levels are not particularly high in comparison to the US. I think it would be fair to say that the death penalty doesn't work, it doesn't reduce violent crime.

If what you claim is true about recidivism there should be a lot of it here, but there isn't.

[Wolfehunter]

I would support death penalties if these issues where solved first.

Government corruption.
Police state.
Bias, corrupted and racist laws.
Absolute proof!

Then I would consider death penalties worth while. Because there would be no margin of errors.

[OneToughHerring]

One theory is that in a way criminals who are caught and imprisoned should be viewed very much like disease carriers. They are isolated from the society when they are 'active' but once the disease has been cured they could re-join the society. The way it can be seen from a sociological viewpoint is that crime is like a disease or a social malaise and once we know what makes a criminal 'tick' we've learned something and that data can be used to prevent similar crimes from happening in the future, in a way creating a 'vaccine' against that particular crime.

IMO it is the sign of a societies strenght that it can take a criminal and make that person into a good citizen, not just kill him off in some horrid ceremony used to thirst some collective bloodlust akin to the ancient times when people were sacrificed to whatever diety.

I think people should be allowed to go with the 'biblical' rule, "eye for an eye" etc., that the death penalty represents. But then they shouldn't use any aspect of sociological sciences in their societies. Or any aspects of modern society. They should live like the Amish and kill off the criminals of their little backward community.

[Aramike]

Well we, along with a whole host of countries, don't have the death penalty and the last I looked our violent crime levels are not particularly high in comparison to the US. I think it would be fair to say that the death penalty doesn't work, it doesn't reduce violent crime.

If what you claim is true about recidivism there should be a lot of it here, but there isn't.I've had this discussion with several people professionally. There are many, many factors that contribute to violent crime rates, the least relevent of which is the death penalty. In many cases, it is cultural.

[CaptainHaplo]

Not to mention - most murderers end up spending life in prison anyway. The issue then becomes is the expedience of termination before nature the proper option? But thats another question entirely.

[August]

What good is being sorry for a few months, or even a few years? Make them sorry for the rest of their lives, and then ensure that they are miserable lives.

The Lance Corporal gets it. :salute:

[GoldenRivet]

I would be for that... the problem here is that most judges would rather the criminals had cable TV and ping pong tables and weight sets and libraries and movie night and similar luxuries.

:nope:

when you are sentenced life in prison, you should be placed in an 8x8 white room with concrete walls, floor, and ceiling, no window.

your first day on the grounds you will dig a hole using a regular garden shovel.

the hole will measure 7 feet long by 3 feet wide by 6feet deep.

you are allowed 30 minutes per day in a 20x20 exercise room which is equipped with a treadmill.

your food will be your choice of white or wheat bread, a single serving of vegetable, and a single serving of "mystery meat" served with room temp water.

you are allowed to bring 5 books for entertainment ... make them good ones.

your cell will be equipped with a single cotton sheet and a seat with a small hole for defication.

your only chore will be to clean out the sewage trap beneath this hole once per week equipped with rubber gloves, a single sponge and a regular garden hose.

when you die of old age, you will be placed into a pine box and thrown into the hole you dug on day one

[Aramike]

I have no problem with, rather than the death penalty, making prison life damned near unbearable. But sadly, that's not what we have. If we were to put into place the systems that most of us agree upon, ultra left groups would go nuts. I seem to remember that a few years ago there was a politician in Europe that claimed that a prison without a chance of escape leaves the prisoners no hope, and, as such, is inhumane.

As such, there are indeed some offenders that should just be put to death I believe.

[Aramike]

An interesting related incident: http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/47730062.html


A suspect in the fatal shooting of a man on the north side Tuesday night had been released from prison that same morning and was arrested within hours of the shooting, Police Chief Edward Flynn said. Note: I do not know why this perp was in prison in the first place, but I'm just saying...

Here's another interesting case for examination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery