Death Penalty

[Mr Skeptic]

There will be a group that will take advantage of this, the question is how many had committed crimes before? However, I would not confuse the need to acquire what you and your family needs to survive in time of a disaster with the act of looting. The case in point is some of the news channels coverage of Haiti.

 

But I understand the point you are making.

 

Well, I can understand looting food, medicine, and even clothing, but in New Orleans there was plenty of looting for jewelery.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9131493/

 

Very quickly an attitude of "we need this", "it will rot anyways", and "I better get it before someone else does" combined with a lack or inability of law enforcement, results in what most people think would never happen, not here where we're civilized. Edit: forgot to add, "everyone else is doing it".

Edited February 10, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[CharonY]

Is there any real evidence that harsher punishments lead to less crime?

 

The data is conflicting (and I am not knowledgeable enough to disentangle that), although the common themes appears to be that it does only partially scale (if at all), it depends on the kind of crimes and sociologists like to tear each others studies apart.

[Mr Skeptic]

So what you're really saying is that "it takes $10 to save certain lives in certain situations," not that $10 is the "value" of human life.

 

I mean, you could do the same sort of analysis in a developed country for the cost of treatment for heart disease, and you'd end up with a much larger number.

 

Well yes, that is the point. The idea that a human life is priceless is naively idealistic. There's plenty of preventable deaths via behavior changes, and there is plenty of preventable deaths that involve just money. Therefore a monetary cost can be given as to how much a human life would cost to save. (This cost is different in different countries, so the idea that all lives are equally priceless is also dubious) So the idea that we can't kill people to save money cause lives are priceless, doesn't take into account that we already do that all the time, albeit by inaction, for whatever that is worth.

[The Bear's Key]

JohnB, that's the most sensibly written argument vs captal punishment I've ever seen. Kudos.

 

 

Again though, it is not like imprisonment is much better. You can't un-imprison someone just like you can't un-kill them. You can release them, but they still have been punished for something they didn't do.

Aren't innocent people relieved when finally released? Can't say that about the wrongfully dead.

 

Perhaps... But tell me, what happens when suddenly the probability of getting caught drops a lot, like during disasters?

What hapens usually is a lot of desperation and no sense of future as to their immediate plight with no communication to the outer world and no preparation by government for citizens to organize in emergency disasters, and so the worst picture seems imminent.

 

Here's what might actually occur in normal theft situations when the probability of getting caught drops.

 

http://www.wallettest.com/Lost_Wallet_Test/Results_Page.html

100 wallets were dropped in front of hidden cameras to see

who would return the wallets and who would steal them...

.....

Of all 100 people tested:

 

74% were honest and

returned the wallets.

.....

Summary: The good news is that most

people were honest - in fact, honest people

out numbered dishonest people nearly 3 to 1.

Another...

 

http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/1997/03/think_01.html

OUT OF 120 wallets dropped in Canada, 77 were returned intact -- 64 percent. In a similar Digest survey of 12 U.S. towns and cities, the figure was 67 percent. In Europe it was 58 percent; in Asia, 57 percent.

........

We found a fascinating contrast between perception and reality. While many of our respondents predicted that we would get back fewer than half the wallets, in fact two out of every three were returned intact.

 

We got a strong sense that people mistrust bureaucracy. The vast majority of people who returned our wallets preferred to call us directly; later they told us that they didn't trust security guards or police to pass on the money.

.....

The wallet test made one thing abundantly clear: Our moral compasses are set early by the example of our elders. An overwhelming majority of returners said their desire to do the right thing was instilled by the teaching of parents.

 

 

So the idea that we can't kill people to save money cause lives are priceless, doesn't take into account that we already do that all the time, albeit by inaction, for whatever that is worth.

The price you mentioned isn't for anyone's life, but the tool preserving it. A more accurate gauge would be how much a person's willing to be compensated for an early death, or how much the average person's willing to be compensated with the knowledge that accepting the money would immediately end another person's life with no consequences.

 

 

Imagine the money we could save that could be used to fund healthcare for the poor. Spending money on violent offenders instead of sick children kills as surely as any death penalty does.

First of all, this is a criticism of the courtroom, not the punishment. An innocent person should not be convicted in the first place. Indeed, maybe part of the cost savings outlined above could be used to improve this.

Not quite.

 

DH made a great example in the human space flight thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=541608#post541608

It is not "as simple as that." The scientists assumption is that if funding were cut from human space flight (not manned flight, BTW; stop being sexist

), those funds would transfer to NASA's science budget. That assumption does not follow. Politicians in particular think otherwise. Some examples:

• When the US ended the Apollo program, the monies spent on sending men to the Moon were not transferred to NASA's science budget. NASA's budget just shrank all around, including its science budget.
  
  
• When Great Britain banned government funding of human space flight activities, the monies spent on those efforts were not transferred to the BNSC's science budget. Those monies were used on other non-related efforts. The BNSC's science budget shrank.
  
  
• When the US cancelled the Superconducting Super Collider project, the monies allocated to that project were not transferred to collider projects.

Apply that lesson to any money saved in the legal process. For instance, did any of the $236 billion surplus in year 2000 go to funding healthcare for the poor?

 

Or did it go elsewhere?

 

 

Now, you might say that the deaths caused by, say, traffic accidents are accidental, so not compatible. However, they are preventable - just ban cars. Of course we are not willing to do that because we are willing to take the risk of deing in a car crash to gain the advantage of mobility. We think that our society is a better place with the mobility offered by cars, and that improvement outweighs the risk of dieing in an accident.

The major difference there is between accidental killing of people and intentional.

[JohnB]

Thanks TBK.

 

Now, Mr Skeptic.

The government has the power to execute citizens, whether or not it has the right to do so. Harsh prisons or excessive force when the person "tries to escape" will do the job just fine.

Incorrect. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between killing a person while arresting or detaining them to killing them when they are captured and harmless. This concept is deemed true even in wartime. A soldier is expected to kill the enemy in combat, however once that enemy is captured, he must not be killed. You can use lethal force if he is trying to escape, but you can't strap him to a chair and kill him.

 

This simple difference is the basis for the Geneva Conventions and International Human Rights Law. If you do not understand that killing in combat is different to killing a helpless and harmless person then that is not my problem. The rest of the civilised world understands the difference as do many, many Americans.

 

Also, governments only have the power that we the people grant them. In a civilised society, pushing for the reintroduction of the DP would be electoral suicide. Any government that advocated or passed it would be out at the next election. If politicians understand that the citizens will not stand for something, they will not pursue it.

 

There is always the possibility that the government concerned isn't worried about the electoral backlash because they aren't intending to have another election anyway. However if it has come to this, then I would suggest that the effected nation has far more to worry about than legislated penalties.

 

No, we limit every other power the government has, and this is no different.

And there are powers that governments are strictly forbidden to have. I believe that something called "The Bill of Rights" does this in America. You could always add another Article, you know.

 

We have laws limiting the maximum sentence for various crimes; why should this be different? The line has to be drawn anyways.

 

Incorrect. Apples and oranges again. Punishments dealt out by the legal system cover a spectrum. These include fines, probation and incarceration. A sliding scale is used for the reason that law and justice is often a grey area. So a person might be fined and the matter dropped, they might be fined and placed on probation or they might be fined and incarcerated, all depending on the severity of the crime and the circumstances.

 

We do this because it is impossible to legislate for every possible contingency. It's all well and good to say "If you murder, the chair is this way", but that is implistic and flawed. Do you sentence to death the father who has killed the man who molested his 7 year old daughter?

 

The DP should be avoided because it doesn't fit into this graduated scale of punishment. Someone can't be a "little bit" dead. At least in the example above, daddy will one day come home to his little girl. Your way, he won't.

 

My way: "Daddy hurt the bad man who hurt you and that was wrong. But you can visit him often and he will come home to you."

 

Your way: "Daddy hurt the bad man who hurt you, so we are going to kill him."

 

Is that really the message you want to get across?

 

Again though, it is not like imprisonment is much better. You can't un-imprison someone just like you can't un-kill them. You can release them, but they still have been punished for something they didn't do.

 

True, they can't be unjailed. But they can be released and compensated by the state for the injustice. This has happened in my State of Queensland. An Aboriginal man spent some 8 years in jail for the murder of a nurse. He was released after a long campaign finally got records released that showed it was impossible for him to have committed the crime as he was sleeping off a drunk in the local lockup at the time the murder was committed.

 

My way: He's out, alive and compensated. (Although money seems a poor compensation.) And the reopened case caught and convicted the real killer.

 

Your way: He's dead. End of story. And the real killer goes free.

 

And, what if people die because someone was not executed? Someone with life in prison without possibility of execution, has nothing to lose by trying to escape, killing guards, and what not.

 

How many times has this happened? Or is it just a scary story?

 

Yeah, I've got news for you. The dollar value of a human life is about $10, although it is higher in developed nations. Chew on that for a while.

 

I understand how you came by that figure but so what? The actual dollar value of a human life is relative to the society and circumstances. I didn't introduce the word "priceless" into this debate but it is apt. Since the value changes dependent on so many factors, any attempt actually place a dollar value on human life is inherently and automatically wrong.

 

Even your example of malaria vaccine is pointless. Without clean water the african will still die. Without Thor knows what else, he will still die.

 

Human life is priceless not because it is above value, but because the value cannot be calculated. There is a difference.

 

On a more general note. There is 6,000 years of recorded history that says that the DP doesn't work. If it did, we would have removed the violent ones by now.

 

Also, once the violent criminal is caught and incarcerated he is no longer a danger to society. Why then kill him? He poses no danger, so the only reason left as justification is revenge. Revenge is a very poor thing to base a "Justice" system on.

 

I will add that according to Amnesty International there are 139 nations that are abolitionist in law or practice and 58 retentionist.

 

4. Retentionist

 

Countries and territories that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes

 

Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe

 

China, Cuba, Sudan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe. What fine company the retentionist policy allows you to mingle in.

 

This bit is also interesting;

Countries that have abolished the death penalty since 1976

 

1976: Portugal abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1978: Denmark abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1979: Luxembourg, Nicaragua and Norway abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Brazil, Fiji and Peru abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

1981: France and Cape Verde abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1982: The Netherlands abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1983: Cyprus and El Salvador abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

1984: Argentina abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

1985: Australia abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1987: Haiti, Liechtenstein and the German Democratic Republic (1) abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1989: Cambodia, New Zealand, Romania and Slovenia (2) abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1990: Andorra, Croatia (2), the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (3), Hungary, Ireland, Mozambique, Namibia and Sao Tomé and Príncipe abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1992: Angola, Paraguay and Switzerland abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1993: Guninea-Bissau, Hong Kong (4) and Seychelles abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1994: Italy abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1995: Djibouti, Mauritius, Moldova and Spain abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1996: Belgium abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1997: Georgia, Nepal, Poland and South Africa abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Bolivia abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

1998: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Lithuania and the United Kingdom abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

1999: East Timor, Turkmenistan and Ukraine abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Latvia (5) abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

2000 : Cote D'Ivoire and Malta abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Albania (6) abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

2001: Bosnia-Herzegovina (7) abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Chile abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

2002: Cyprus and Yugoslavia (now two states Serbia and Montenegro (9)) abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

2003: Armenia abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

2004: Bhutan, Greece, Samoa, Senegal and Turkey abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

2005: Liberia (8) and Mexico abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

2006: Philippines abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

2007: Albania (6), Cook Islands, Kyrgyzstan and Rwanda abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Kazakhstan abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

 

2008: Uzbekistan and Argentina abolish the death penalty for all crimes.

 

2009: Burundi and Togo abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

 

If the United States wants to continue this barbaric practice, then go for it. But don't ignore the fact that many US citizens want it gone for the same reasons that other civilised nations have abolished it. Even East Timor, fresh from the womb as a new nation made abolition almost it's first act of Parliment.

 

"World Leader"? On this and other issues you are so far behind the rest of the industrialised, civilized world you don't even qualify as a pathetic "Hanger On".

[Mr Skeptic]

Incorrect. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between killing a person while arresting or detaining them to killing them when they are captured and harmless. This concept is deemed true even in wartime. A soldier is expected to kill the enemy in combat, however once that enemy is captured, he must not be killed. You can use lethal force if he is trying to escape, but you can't strap him to a chair and kill him.

 

In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that in practice the government has ways of killing people regardless of whether it legally has the right to. For example, someone they want dead might be "trying to escape" by holding up his hands and shouting that he surrenders. Bang, bang! And of course people can die in prison due to disease, neglect, or harsh environments (think prisons in Siberia, or forced labor). In practice the government can kill people, and it can always give itself the right to do so legally if it wishes to.

 

And there are powers that governments are strictly forbidden to have. I believe that something called "The Bill of Rights" does this in America. You could always add another Article, you know.

 

And likewise it can be repealed.

 

Incorrect. Apples and oranges again. Punishments dealt out by the legal system cover a spectrum. These include fines, probation and incarceration. A sliding scale is used for the reason that law and justice is often a grey area. So a person might be fined and the matter dropped, they might be fined and placed on probation or they might be fined and incarcerated, all depending on the severity of the crime and the circumstances.

 

How is this different when there's a death penalty? Where's the line between fining someone $1 and $2? When a certain point is reached on the sliding scale, the death penalty can become an option instead of other punishments -- it is just another aspect of the "amount" of punishment.

 

Oh, are you complaining that someone can't be deader than dead? How about telling me the difference between fining someone $1 million or $ 10 million, if they can't pay it either way? Or perhaps sentencing someone for 200 years instead of 100, if they aren't going to live that long?

 

My own view is not that of Severians, of obligatory death penalties for violent crimes. No, what I think is that life in prison sentences should be legally equivalent to death sentences, and have the same legal protections. I believe we should have rehabilitation play a more important role, and death kind of makes rehabilitation difficult... but I see no problem, legally, politically, nor morally, for keeping death sentence an option. Certain people are just dangerous to keep around.

 

I don't mind if we get rid of the death penalty for good, but I do think that our legal system as it is is completely broken. We can't have this prison culture, and life in prison is pretty much a dumb punishment. If you don't think someone should ever see the light of day, there is an app for that.

 

How many times has this happened? Or is it just a scary story?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_escape#Famous_historical_escapes

It's happened. Remember, you said:

I say 1 is too many.

So, clearly just 1 death from prison escape attempts is enough.

 

I understand how you came by that figure but so what? The actual dollar value of a human life is relative to the society and circumstances. I didn't introduce the word "priceless" into this debate but it is apt. Since the value changes dependent on so many factors, any attempt actually place a dollar value on human life is inherently and automatically wrong.

 

"Wrong" it may be, but it is unavoidable -- there will always be preventable deaths, some for monetary reasons only. I also think it's "wrong" that I get bitten by mosquitoes, but hey, that's life. Not everything can be perfect and idealized.

 

Human life is priceless not because it is above value, but because the value cannot be calculated. There is a difference.

 

But I showed you how it is calculated, in terms of money-based inaction. You can also calculate it in terms of action, and sometimes the lines between action and inaction get blurred.

 

On a more general note. There is 6,000 years of recorded history that says that the DP doesn't work. If it did, we would have removed the violent ones by now.

 

You mean, 6000 years of recorded history that says law enforcement doesn't work (not perfectly anyways). Oh, do you think things would have worked out better if historically the death penalty had never been allowed? Back then we couldn't afford life in prison...

 

Also, once the violent criminal is caught and incarcerated he is no longer a danger to society.

 

That is patently false, as I have demonstrated above. Much less dangerous, perhaps, but still potentially dangerous.

 

China, Cuba, Sudan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe. What fine company the retentionist policy allows you to mingle in.

 

These countries also eat. Are you going to stop eating now, so you won't be in their company?

[bascule]

You can't un-imprison someone just like you can't un-kill them. You can release them, but they still have been punished for something they didn't do.

 

So? Prison is temporary. Death is permanent. If you accidentally imprison an innocent person and let them go they can still live the rest of your life. If you accidentally kill a person they're still dead even if exonerated.

[JohnB]

In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that in practice the government has ways of killing people regardless of whether it legally has the right to.

I do take your point, however the question here is whether or not to give them the legal right. I'm saying "No". A soldier in wartime can also commit atrocities, shall we give them the legal right to do so?

 

And likewise it can be repealed.

 

One of the differences between our nations. We require a referendum to change the Constitution. While abolition is not part of our Constitution, as I said earlier an attempt to reintroduce the DP here would be electoral suicide.

 

Also as I said before, if the gov is repealing the abolition, then I think that you would have bigger things to worry about than legal matters.

 

How is this different when there's a death penalty? Where's the line between fining someone $1 and $2? When a certain point is reached on the sliding scale, the death penalty can become an option instead of other punishments -- it is just another aspect of the "amount" of punishment.

 

Oh, are you complaining that someone can't be deader than dead? How about telling me the difference between fining someone $1 million or $ 10 million, if they can't pay it either way? Or perhaps sentencing someone for 200 years instead of 100, if they aren't going to live that long?

 

How about because all those other penalties can be revoked? The DP is the one irreversible penalty. It's this very basic difference that puts the DP outside the graduated scale.

 

So, clearly just 1 death from prison escape attempts is enough.

So, do we stop using prisons or do we just execute everybody, regardless of the crime?

 

That is patently false, as I have demonstrated above. Much less dangerous, perhaps, but still potentially dangerous.

 

And as I pointed out, you didn't. As to "potentially dangerous" I would suggest that from the ROWs point of view the US is far more than "potentially" dangerous. Would you care to do something about that?

 

Once finished, we could plant a great garden with the words "Too annoying to Live" in letters large enough to be seen from space.

 

These countries also eat. Are you going to stop eating now, so you won't be in their company?

Eating is required to live, the choice of killing helpless prisoners is not. In this case, the US is choosing to keep that company when it doesn't have to. Do you see the difference?

[Mr Skeptic]

I do take your point, however the question here is whether or not to give them the legal right. I'm saying "No". A soldier in wartime can also commit atrocities, shall we give them the legal right to do so?

 

What's the difference between a legal action and an illegal action that can be gotten away with? Filesharing is illegal so no one does it, everyone drives under the speed limit, suicide is illegal so no one commits suicide, etc., right? What is practical is far more relevant than what is legal.

 

One of the differences between our nations. We require a referendum to change the Constitution. While abolition is not part of our Constitution, as I said earlier an attempt to reintroduce the DP here would be electoral suicide.

 

Also as I said before, if the gov is repealing the abolition, then I think that you would have bigger things to worry about than legal matters.

 

If the government is illegally killing people you have far more to worry about than whether they have legal ways of killing people or not. It's not like the government can just death penalty anyone it doesn't like, you know. There's a process they have to follow.

 

How about because all those other penalties can be revoked? The DP is the one irreversible penalty. It's this very basic difference that puts the DP outside the graduated scale.

 

There is no penalty that can be revoked after it has been applied. They are all irreversible. A death penalty can be revoked just as easily as a prison sentence.

 

 

And as I pointed out, you didn't. As to "potentially dangerous" I would suggest that from the ROWs point of view the US is far more than "potentially" dangerous. Would you care to do something about that?

 

You're the one who said even one innocent death is too much. I clearly showed that there has been at least 1 innocent death due to imprisoning someone.

 

Eating is required to live, the choice of killing helpless prisoners is not. In this case, the US is choosing to keep that company when it doesn't have to. Do you see the difference?

 

Eating is optional. There have been cases of people who chose not to eat; for example a group starved to death in a seed bank, because they refused to eat what they were saving for posterity.

 

If you prefer, those countries also have prison and law enforcement. Those aren't required to live.

[The Bear's Key]

There is no penalty that can be revoked after it has been applied. They are all irreversible. A death penalty can be revoked just as easily as a prison sentence.

Wrong. Each is only fully served upon its completion. Any revoking of prison time is essentially a partially fulfilled sentence. Care to try a partial death fulfillment?

[Mr Skeptic]

Wrong. Each is only fully served upon its completion. Any revoking of prison time is essentially a partially fulfilled sentence. Care to try a partial death fulfillment?

 

You can revoke a death sentence by canceling it before it gets applied. In this case, the death sentence is fully revoked -- unlike a prison sentence, where only a portion of it can be revoked.

 

Even fines cannot necessarily be entirely revoked.

[The Bear's Key]

You can revoke a death sentence by canceling it before it gets applied. In this case, the death sentence is fully revoked -- unlike a prison sentence, where only a portion of it can be revoked.

Are you forgetting the time before it gets applied is essentially a prison term? But once the death starts, you're not getting a revoke unless a last-minute call barely in the nick of time saves you.

[Dave]

You can revoke a death sentence by canceling it before it gets applied. In this case, the death sentence is fully revoked -- unlike a prison sentence, where only a portion of it can be revoked.

 

I think the more pressing matter is that of exoneration after the sentence is applied. Kinda hard to pull back someone from the dead, isn't it?

 

For me, any other point either for or against the death penalty is immediately nullified by this one point alone. Whilst it's true you can't give someone thirty years of their life back, I would sure has hell rather give them the chance to start over than have their blood on my hands.

[Mr Skeptic]

On the other hand, the death penalty requires much higher standards of evidence... which is why it is "more expensive" than life in prison. So it's a tradeoff of permanence vs less convicted innocents.

 

On a different note, technology is advancing at ever faster rates. If the same is true of forensics technology, we may be able to reach more certain verdicts in the near future. So it may make more sense to wait. On the other hand, the risk of convicting innocents should be decreasing, so that moral objection to death penalty should be decreasing.

[npts2020]

On the other hand, the death penalty requires much higher standards of evidence... which is why it is "more expensive" than life in prison. So it's a tradeoff of permanence vs less convicted innocents.

 

On a different note, technology is advancing at ever faster rates. If the same is true of forensics technology, we may be able to reach more certain verdicts in the near future. So it may make more sense to wait. On the other hand, the risk of convicting innocents should be decreasing, so that moral objection to death penalty should be decreasing.

 

I disagree with the statement highlighted. It is either ok to kill people or it is not. If it is ok, then the state should be given the power to do it with clearly delineated instructions for when it may do so. If it is not ok to kill people then the state should never be given that power. Magnitude of risk to innocents is irrelevant, you either have risk it or you do not. I guess you could argue that some small enough percentage would be essentially no risk, but we are nowhere near that point now.

[Mr Skeptic]

I disagree with the statement highlighted. It is either ok to kill people or it is not. If it is ok, then the state should be given the power to do it with clearly delineated instructions for when it may do so. If it is not ok to kill people then the state should never be given that power.

 

Government will always have the legal capability of killing people. At least until we ban wars, and the use of lethal force for self-defense or law enforcement. All of which have clear rules for when they are appropriate.

 

Magnitude of risk to innocents is irrelevant, you either have risk it or you do not. I guess you could argue that some small enough percentage would be essentially no risk, but we are nowhere near that point now.

 

Magnitude is always relevant. Where exactly the line should be drawn between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk is much fuzzier. But always the magnitude of the risk should be compared with the magnitude of the cost (however that may be measured).

[Saryctos]

Government will always have the legal capability of killing people. At least until we ban wars, and the use of lethal force for self-defense or law enforcement. All of which have clear rules for when they are appropriate.

 

Governments don't declare war on their own citizens, and self defense is done at the discretion of the individual, not the state.

[jryan]

I am opposed to the death penalty and always have been. I see no value in it beyond the quick visceral appeasement of our darker needs for vengeance.

 

I don't mourn the death of a criminal who chooses to take his own life or dies in a shootout with authorities... but once they are apprehended and behind bars their death is no longer about societies preservation but instead it is just another cold and calculated killing.

 

Now I would say, however, that there are certain criminals that, once incarcerated, deserve 24/7 solitary confinement. Those with followers, for instance, who may still be lead to unspeakable things by their jailed leader. Some say that is a fate worse than death.. which doesn't really bother me. At least it is reversible to a degree if the person is later found innocent.

[Pangloss]

I've always wondered about that solitary confinement thing -- it's always seemed to me like more of a blessing than a curse. Who'd want to have to associate with the kind of people you find in jail anyway? But I don't know how isolated they are from other forms of entertainment. I guess if you cut me off from the books and the Wikipedia I would probably go crazy in pretty short order.

[bascule]

I've always wondered about that solitary confinement thing -- it's always seemed to me like more of a blessing than a curse.

 

I suppose it could be either depending on the circumstances.

 

Long-term solitary confinement for months (i.e. alone in a cell, your only contact with other humans being when someone places food through a small door) sounds like hell.

[Mr Skeptic]

But it is humane, non-cruel-and-unusual, hell. Or so they say.

[Severian]

This thread is amazingly full of logical fallacies. Slippery slope arguments and appeals to emotion are all here in abundance. I have yet to see a compelling argument against the death penalty other than a 'ohhh - its wrong!'

 

Sometimes tough decisions need to be made in order to improve society.

[iNow]

I have yet to see a compelling argument against the death penalty

 

It's impossible to teach your society that killing is wrong by killing people. Further, you cannot kill others without being a hypocrite; guilty of the very act you pretend you're trying to stop. Your argument essentially becomes that killing is wrong unless you're the one doing it, and that is the only logical fallacy being displayed here, friend.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's impossible to teach your society that killing is wrong by killing people.

 

The objective of punishment is not to "teach them something is wrong", it is to discourage them from doing something. I think you'll find that killing people and threatening to kill people can be an excellent motivator to get them to stop doing something.

 

"You can get more done with a kind word and a gun, then with a kind word alone."

 

Further, you cannot kill others without being a hypocrite; guilty of the very act you pretend you're trying to stop. Your argument essentially becomes that killing is wrong unless you're the one doing it, and that is the only logical fallacy being displayed here, friend.

 

Of course, that is the very nature of punishment, and no different than jail or fines. Or, are you saying that it is morally right to take people's money by force, or to forcibly kidnap them and keep them confined to a small room? Fines and jails justify robbery and kidnapping? Shall we not punish anyone for anything, lest someone feel that since the government did something as a punishment it's OK for everyone else to do it?

[Severian]

It's impossible to teach your society that killing is wrong by killing people. Further, you cannot kill others without being a hypocrite; guilty of the very act you pretend you're trying to stop. Your argument essentially becomes that killing is wrong unless you're the one doing it, and that is the only logical fallacy being displayed here, friend.

 

They are not the same thing at all. One is lawful killing,the other is not. It is perfectly well defined. Besides, you are not 'trying to teach your society' anything - you are trying to prevent violent criminals from re-offending.

 

The objective of punishment is not to "teach them something is wrong", it is to discourage them from doing something.

 

I would disagree. As I said above, the objective is simply to prevent re-offending. I can guarantee that a dead person won't re-offend, but the same cannot be said for a convict released from prison after serving 15 years.

 

iNow talks of hypocrisy, but I think the hypocrisy is in the camp of those who oppose the death penalty. I am quite prepared to shoulder the moral responsibility for the innocent lives that are lost accidentally through wrongful convictions, but the death penalty opposers wash their hands of the responsibility they bear for the rapes, abuse and deaths caused by re-offenders they have put back on the street.

 

The fact is, a stringent death penalty would save lives.