Considering the Death Penalty

[MonDie]

IMO there are three appropriate responses to a crime:

1. Punishment/Penalty

2. Rehabilitation or Treatment

3. Confinement

 

Confinement is for cases that cannot be rehabilitated.

Punishment serves a separate function, instilling in other citizens that such acts aren't condoned.

Edited January 13, 2015 by MonDie

[zapatos]

I think the primary difference is that if you realize your mistake later, you can say "oops" and let the person out of jail, whereas the death penalty is a tad harder to reverse.

You've still taken away part of their 'life' in both cases. You can let them out if you find you've made a mistake, but you've already taken 'x' number of years from them. You can't say 'oops' and give them those years back.

 

Maybe the death penalty should be reserved for old people. That way if we were mistaken we didn't take very many years from them. I suppose I'd rather be mistakenly executed 10 years before my natural death, than to spend 10 years of my youth in prison and then get out.

[MonDie]

Good question, especially if our goal is to minimize criminal activity (since punishment doesn't tend to be effective in this regard... see also: recidivism rates).

 

[/snip]

 

I wouldn't dismiss punishment just because DP is no more effective than a life-sentence. Perhaps the utility wears off after a certain severity is reached, and at that point other factors become more important, such as the probability of being caught.

[iNow]

I wouldn't dismiss punishment just because DP is no more effective than a life-sentence.

I wouldn't either, and that's not why I'm dismissing punishment as largely ineffective at reducing the crime it's intended to extinguish. The psych literature on the topic of learning and feedback is.

 

I also tend to think rehabilitation is what we ought to seek, not punishment and banishment, that punishment loses efficacy when not administered immediately with the action (like a shock from an electric fence), and that it tends to teach us how to avoid getting caught instead of teaching us to avoid the behavior itself.

 

I want to be careful not to drag us off topic (which is about the death penalty, not the limitations of punishment and imprisonment as an effective means of behavioral change and cultural improvement), but here is a nice piece I came across a few years ago: http://www.is.wayne.edu/stuarthenry/Effectiveness_of_Punishment.htm

[overtone]

Giving one's government the right to kill in cold blood its own citizens, is unwise. Even a short and shallow acquaintanceship with history would warn against that.

 

In the US, for example, we would risk finding ourselves in a situation in which confessions obtained by waterboarding suspects could result in execution. That's not a good idea.

 

If you are going to make that fundamental mistake, at least try to make the officials involved potentially accountable as they are not, now - one could, for example, establish that all capital punishment cases are permanently open for retrial and receptive to new evidence, and that if an executed person is ever found innocent the sentencing judge is guilty of manslaughter.

 

I suspect that would reduce the frequency of executions considerably. The ethical depravity and consequent horrorshow would remain, but less degradingly.

[Greg H.]

...and that if an executed person is ever found innocent the sentencing judge is guilty of manslaughter.

What about the prosecuter that seeks it out? At the very least he should be an accomplice, right?

[Ten oz]

Revenge, retribution, and all concepts of justice through killing are insidious. It is what drives terrorists to act, gang members to battle, and etc. All the death penalty does is validate the idea that killing people somehow creates justice. The more popular that idea and the more firmly supported as a meme within society I believe the more it will considered as a resolution to conflicts and differences of belief. Killing "bad" people seems like a good idea but who is defining "bad"? By some people's definition bad may be a women who allows her hair to be seen on public. I believe it is far better to just all agree that killing anyone for any reason is terrible.

[MigL]

Agree with you Ten oz.

But as I stated in a previous post, no murderer who has received the death penalty has ever killed anyone else.

Is there a case to be made for the death penalty as prevention when rehabilitation is impossible and the risk to re-offend is high ?

And what would be needed as guidelines for this use of the DP ?

how could you guarantee the 'proper and just' ( if even possible ) application ?

Here in Canada, there is no DP, but you can be incarcerated indefinitely, for certain classes of crimes, if there is high risk to re-offend or no hope for re-habilitation, everything else is subject to parole. Could a case be made for substitution with the DP ?

 

Or is this a separate topic ?

[studiot]

 

Ten oz

I believe it is far better to just all agree that killing anyone for any reason is terrible.

 

 

Of course it is, and wouldn't it be a louis armstrong world if everyone implemented that.

 

The problem is the real world where we can make the trivial divide into those who will and those who won't eat tapioca pudding, but can't do the obvious.

[Ten oz]

Agree with you Ten oz.

But as I stated in a previous post, no murderer who has received the death penalty has ever killed anyone else.

Is there a case to be made for the death penalty as prevention when rehabilitation is impossible and the risk to re-offend is high ?

And what would be needed as guidelines for this use of the DP ?

how could you guarantee the 'proper and just' ( if even possible ) application ?

Here in Canada, there is no DP, but you can be incarcerated indefinitely, for certain classes of crimes, if there is high risk to re-offend or no hope for re-habilitation, everything else is subject to parole. Could a case be made for substitution with the DP ?

 

Or is this a separate topic ?

In order to give someone the DP they must already be in custody. So in terms of public safety that person is no longer a threat. As for what to do with them, life without parole. The majority of states in the U.S. have life without parole.

[John Cuthber]

In order to give someone the DP they must already be in custody. So in terms of public safety that person is no longer a threat. As for what to do with them, life without parole. The majority of states in the U.S. have life without parole.

Good point.

Since the guy is locked up and can't kill again (with the possible exception of other people in prison), what's to gain from killing him and, in some way, thereby lowering yourself to his level?

OK, so you save quite a lot of money- Well, we live in rich countries so that's hardly a severe problem.

 

Should you compromise the integrity of the state by turning it into a killer just to save some cash?

 

personally, I don't think so.

I don't want to stoop to the level of being a killer and I don't think that doing it by proxy by getting the state execute the sentence makes it any different.

[Delta1212]

Good point.

Since the guy is locked up and can't kill again (with the possible exception of other people in prison), what's to gain from killing him and, in some way, thereby lowering yourself to his level?

OK, so you save quite a lot of money- Well, we live in rich countries so that's hardly a severe problem.

 

Should you compromise the integrity of the state by turning it into a killer just to save some cash?

 

personally, I don't think so.

I don't want to stoop to the level of being a killer and I don't think that doing it by proxy by getting the state execute the sentence makes it any different.

The appeals process for a death row inmate costs more than life imprisonment.

[MonDie]

Good point.

Since the guy is locked up and can't kill again (with the possible exception of other people in prison)

 

[/snip]

 

Good point. If we don't kill them, they might just end up killing eachother... and far more inhumanely too!

[studiot]

Overnight we have again seen gun battles between the state and terrorists, which ended in the death of the terrorists.

 

Last time there were also police killed.

 

So should the state never take a life?

[Delta1212]

Overnight we have again seen gun battles between the state and terrorists, which ended in the death of the terrorists.

 

Last time there were also police killed.

 

So should the state never take a life?

Well, ideally no, but the world we live in being what it is, I find lethal force acceptable to use against someone who is in immediate danger of inflicting grievous harm on someone else.

 

I think that it is possible to define that situation too broadly, and that there have been numerous incidents lately of far too wide a net being cast here in the US, but I'm not willing to rule it out as an acceptable action entirely, although I would probably prefer a nonlethal solution if one were available even then.

[Ten oz]

Overnight we have again seen gun battles between the state and terrorists, which ended in the death of the terrorists.

 

Last time there were also police killed.

 

So should the state never take a life?

Defending once self or others is not the same thing as executing someone who has already been detained.

What purpose do laws serve in your opinion? For me they ideally help structure society in a way that provides everyone the security to flourish. They should be aimed at preventing bad things from happening. I do not think they should be aimed at punishing the wicked. Prisons should be used to keep dangerous people off the street. Getting even or getting revenge are not tangible goals. Safety and security is what I expect from my government. Once I am safe from an individual or a group the government does not need to take the extra step of killing those people.

[zapatos]

What purpose do laws serve in your opinion? For me they ideally help structure society in a way that provides everyone the security to flourish. They should be aimed at preventing bad things from happening. I do not think they should be aimed at punishing the wicked.

So if a person robs a store but they are not deemed a threat to commit a crime again, you don't see any reason to put them in jail?

 

Let's say someone killed a person who wronged him in a most egregious way. This person is not a risk to kill ever again. They should not be punished?

[studiot]

In the very first line of my very first post I started off by observing that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

I think that lengthy imprisonment is not one either.

I think we all agree this.

 

But there was more to my first post and I would like to concentrate a bit on that.

 

In other words I am less interested in retribution than in preventing more good people having to die just to allow wrong thinking people to have their misguided way.

 

If we don't shoot mad dogs, what do we do with them to prevent recurrence?

Edited January 16, 2015 by studiot

[imatfaal]

If we don't shoot mad dogs, what do we do with them to prevent recurrence?

 

Having a mental healthcare system that is free at the point of access, non-judgmental, outside the justice system, and well funded would mean that most "mad dogs" don't reach the point at which shooting seems necessary. Very few people come to the attention of the state mental healthcare system for the first time after the perpetration of a violent crime.

 

And a decent healthcare system, a fair judicial system, and a justice system directed towards rehabilitation rather than retribution is far and away the cheapest alternative. The "hard on crime" draconian system appeals to the deliberately frightening voters and plays the tune called by the press - but it does not work and it is very very expensive.

[Ten oz]

So if a person robs a store but they are not deemed a threat to commit a crime again, you don't see any reason to put them in jail?

 

Let's say someone killed a person who wronged him in a most egregious way. This person is not a risk to kill ever again. They should not be punished?

How would you "deem" that someone who exercised such poor and dangerous behavior as robbery would never do it again? Robbery issomething that posses a threat to society. People who perform robbery should be policed.

I do not believe that someone who kills for a reason other than defense is of no risk to ever do it again. Killing another human crosses a major ethical and moral line. So I can not imagine a scenario where a murderer would not be a risk. Of course there are degrees to everything which is why manslaughter is treated differently than first degree murder.

[studiot]

 

imatfaal

Having a mental healthcare system that is free at the point of access, non-judgmental, outside the justice system, and well funded would mean that most "mad dogs" don't reach the point at which shooting seems necessary. Very few people come to the attention of the state mental healthcare system for the first time after the perpetration of a violent crime.

 

And a decent healthcare system, a fair judicial system, and a justice system directed towards rehabilitation rather than retribution is far and away the cheapest alternative. The "hard on crime" draconian system appeals to the deliberately frightening voters and plays the tune called by the press - but it does not work and it is very very expensive.

 

 

 

In the words of the late MRD, A Doctor, turned Lawyer would say that wouldn't he? (No offence meant but the quote was too good to miss).

 

But seriously, you miss my point.

 

Termination, Belgian style, at the point of access (first contact) would remove the need for both a health servece and a judicial system in respect of these, not that either would have made any difference.

 

Most people simply want them stopped, before they do any damage.

[imatfaal]

In the words of the late MRD, A Doctor, turned Lawyer would say that wouldn't he? (No offence meant but the quote was too good to miss).

 

I could turn it around and agree with a corollary - "of course I would say that; but like always we won't listen to those with experience - we will leave it to the press and the politicians to actually decide". And never actually a doctor - only a med student.

 

Termination, Belgian style, at the point of access (first contact) would remove the need for both a health servece and a judicial system in respect of these, not that either would have made any difference.

 

Most people simply want them stopped, before they do any damage.

 

But the first contact with the Belgians was months ago.

 

If you concentrate on the single incident in the heat of the moment you would go over to a system of martial law with extra-judicial execution in the hands of the administration - but we don't need or want that. The more paramilitary a policing system becomes the more paramilitary violence that society will suffer - both at the hands of the police and at the hands of those that the aforesaid system was meant to counter.

[zapatos]

How would you "deem" that someone who exercised such poor and dangerous behavior as robbery would never do it again? Robbery issomething that posses a threat to society. People who perform robbery should be policed.

I do not believe that someone who kills for a reason other than defense is of no risk to ever do it again. Killing another human crosses a major ethical and moral line. So I can not imagine a scenario where a murderer would not be a risk. Of course there are degrees to everything which is why manslaughter is treated differently than first degree murder.

The mechanism to 'deem' someone to no longer be a threat is irrelevant to my point. Assuming we had a full proof method, if someone who robbed or killed is no longer a threat to do so again, do you believe they should not be punished?

I do not believe that someone who kills for a reason other than defense is of no risk to ever do it again.

So given that you believe the government should keep dangerous people off the streets, and that we should not be 'punishing' them, you seem to be saying that anyone who kills for a reason other than defense should be jailed for life, since they are a risk to do it again.

[studiot]

 

The more paramilitary a policing system becomes the more paramilitary violence that society will suffer - both at the hands of the police and at the hands of those that the aforesaid system was meant to counter

 

Two recent event would offer a powerful counterargument.

 

In France multiple ordinary members of the public, including the your paramilitary police (who after all are really drawn from ordinary members)

 

Some terrorists died.

 

In Belgium

 

No ordinary members suffered.

 

Some terrorists died.

 

I am not sorry to see the back of any of those terrorists.

[Delta1212]

The mechanism to 'deem' someone to no longer be a threat is irrelevant to my point. Assuming we had a full proof method, if someone who robbed or killed is no longer a threat to do so again, do you believe they should not be punished?

 

Well, given that we have a fool proof method of determining whether someone will reoffend, I think that it's logical that we also have a fool proof method of determining the exact punishment that would have deterred someone from committing the crime in the first place if they'd known it would be applied to them, and that this should be the punishment for anyone who won't be reoffending.

 

That seems like it would do the most effective job of offering a deterrence to committing crimes in the first place.