Death Penalty

[Rezzy]

Overshadowed by the presidential election, many states yesterday voted to reinstate or strengthen the death penalty in their state.

To avoid it getting buried in the presidential thread, plus the fact the the election there is over, and this is only tangentially related, I thought I'd start this discussion here.

What are people's opinions?

My stance is that the death penalty is inherently flawed. First and foremost, if there's even the possibility that the person is wrongly convicted, there is no way to take it back. Second, the cost associated with it is more expensive than life imprisonment. Third, with the secure prisons we have today, escape is very unlikely with life sentences, so they are not a threat to society. Fourth, there is the problem where certain races and classes that are far more likely to be sentenced to death than others. Fifth, debatable, but it may go against the statute forbidding cruel and unusual punishment. Lastly, my personal belief is that all human life is sacred and even criminals do not deserve this punishment.

[Lord Raven]

The thing is that I don't have much to offer, but my personal belief is in the first four of your points. I don't believe it's inherently cruel or unusual, and I don't necessarily believe all human life is sacred.

Ultimately, I don't think someone who would otherwise be convicted of the death penalty is really worth the extra money it takes to kill him.

[Res]

I also agree with your first four points.

Tempting as it sometimes sounds, it's too fallible a system.

[Anacybele]

I only agree with your first four points as well. However, I must admit that while this might sound somewhat wrong, the death penalty probably does create more space in jails/prisons.

[Lord Raven]

^ there are sincerely a lot of things that create more space in jails/prisons, and the death penalty has been enforced 1440 times since 1976. That clears up almost zero space.

[Phoenix Wright]

agreed with above

[Zanarkin]

I agree with the first four points. While i don't think all criminals can be rehabilitated, i definitely think that most criminals can be rehabilitated, and the death penalty comes from a system which thinks in the entirely opposite way.

Those criminals who cannot be rehabilitated could perhaps be treated in other ways. How though? I don't entirely know, but I don't think that means we should kill them. Besides, I think a worse punishment than death is a life sentence.

I only agree with your first four points as well. However, I must admit that while this might sound somewhat wrong, the death penalty probably does create more space in jails/prisons.

To be fair, the states could fix the space issue if they got rid of most of their drug laws. Perhaps replacing them with more just laws. The war on drugs is the biggest failure ever and has only made things worse. Unfortunately it has lasted way longer than the prohibition, which had similar issues.

An interesting and quick video on it:

Edited November 10, 2016 by SlayerX

[Balcerzak]

For truly incorrigibles, death should not be off the table. However, in practice it should be vanishingly rare, with only those who've demonstrated the willingness and ability to escape from prison, or who are able to continue committing crimes even while behind bars (whether that is raping/murdering other inmates, or pulling the strings of a criminal organization from the comfort of their cell) being executed..

[Rezzy]

To be fair, the states could fix the space issue if they got rid of most of their drug laws. Perhaps replacing them with more just laws. The war on drugs is the biggest failure ever and has only made things worse. Unfortunately it has lasted way longer than the prohibition, which had similar issues.

An interesting and quick video on it:

That brings up another point. A lot of states voted to legalized marijuana, medical or otherwise. Hopefully, it's a sign that the whole country will lighten the drug laws soon. As stated, much of the prison population is from drug violations and leads the USA to have one of the highest prison populations in the world.

[Nym]

I also agreed with the first 4.

However, this is one big problem: when criminals get out of prison, they do another crime immediately and come back in prison (because they can't live a normal life anymore because of they had the criminal status).

Ruining someone's life is already really bad but do it twice should be unforgetful.

I don't support death penality but I don't consider those who raped or killed, human anymore.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Nym

[Moblin Major General]

1. Death Penalty is only applicable to felony-murder of a particular nature (i.e. kidnapping/rape), multiple killings, treason, Hague-worthy offenses, and domestic terrorism.

2. The method used must be effective, quick, nearly painless, and cheap to implement.

3. Have a different jury determine if the death penalty is warranted, given the trial court transcript.

4. Educate the people as to why it's ethical and even sometimes necessary to not leave someone to have a prison rot on top of them.

5. Call me draconian, but how many death row inmates just come across as evil? It's one thing to have an itchy trigger finger during a gas station robbery. It's another to gun down 9 people in cold blood because of the color of their skin, or plant homemade bombs at a crowded event. Such contempt for human life should be paid in kind, with prejudice.

@Rezzy: Just a personal thought, God does say life is sacred, but lives are taken every second of every day, for reasons even more petty than a jury's decision. I can't bring myself to agree with you in good conscience when some cold cases mean someone like Dylan Roof, Zhokar Tsarnaev, or Ariel Castro managed to live their entire life without facing the truth of the law, and that sickens me.

[Zanarkin]

I don't support death penality but I don't consider those who raped or killed, human anymore.

Do you include those who have killed in justifiable self-defence or in the defence of someone else (i.e. they were not threatened but someone else was) as not human? Crimes of passion are also a thing and with the availability of guns now a days, one can do something really stupid in the blink of an eye. I dont think it is right to treat humans who have committed crimes as non-humans. Humans are humans, and we can all do horrible shit to one another, just like we can do nice things for each other.

Edited November 10, 2016 by SlayerX

[Nym]

Do you include those who have killed in justifiable self-defence or in the defence of someone else (i.e. they were not threatened but someone else was) as not human? Crimes of passion are also a thing and with the availability of guns now a days, one can do something really stupid in the blink of an eye. I dont think it is right to treat humans who have committed crimes as non-humans. Humans are humans, and we can all do horrible shit to one another, just like we can do nice things for each other.

I also agreed with the first 4.

However, this is one big problem: when criminals get out of prison, they do another crime immediately and come back in prison (because they can't live a normal life anymore so they had the criminal status).

Ruining someone's life is already really bad but do it twice should be unforgetful.

I don't support death penality but I don't consider those who raped or killed, human anymore.

I said for those who ruins other people's life, not self-defence, of course.

Also murder is a murder. I know this is a very ''black or white'' ideology but killing is never good, crime of passion or not.

Killing for protection is one thing. Killing for vengeance, love or fun are another.

Also, you should know that here in Canada, we can't get weapons as easy as America. And I'm sure that also the case for a lot of countries.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Nym

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

My opinion is quite short:

Abolish DP (because it's nothing else than murder to me) and let terrorists suffer in isolation till the rest of their life.

As for murder pretty much the same... but after 25-30 years you can think of reprieve.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Ayama Wirdo

[Zanarkin]

Also murder is a murder. I know this is a very ''black or white'' ideology but killing is never good, crime of passion or not.

Killing for protection is one thing. Killing for vengeance, love or fun are another.

Also, you should know that here in Canada, we can't get weapons as easy as America. And I'm sure that also the case for a lot of countries.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying killing for passion/love/or other emotions are excusable. However, I do want to say that treating them as non-human for killing someone for those reasons is rather harsh. There is also things like manslaughter where there is no malice, but the person is still entirely responsible for killing another human being.

Yes, perhaps getting weapons in Canada and other countries is more difficult, but you can still acquire them if you appear to be mentally stable. Mental states could deteriorate due to conditions in your environment (such as an abusive relationship), or just old age/accidents. Granted this might be stretching it a little and I am not too informed on exact laws (i.e. is there like a check on gun owners every certain span of time or for other reasons (like accidents) and such), but the possibility is there. Not to mention illegal guns are pretty much available everywhere.

Edited November 10, 2016 by SlayerX

[eclipse]

I also agreed with the first 4.

However, this is one big problem: when criminals get out of prison, they do another crime immediately and come back in prison (because they can't live a normal life anymore so they had the criminal status).

Ruining someone's life is already really bad but do it twice should be unforgetful.

I don't support death penality but I don't consider those who raped or killed, human anymore.

I think this speaks more for our prison system in general (which isn't geared towards rehabilitation).

As for the topic. . .it's tricky. While I think it would be warranted in very extreme cases, those cases all revolve around intent/chance of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, proving intent with certainty is extremely hard, and for something as severe as the death penalty, I'd like zero chance of doubt. In practice, that means I don't support the death penalty, because we don't have the means to pry open someone's psyche and lay out their entire thought pattern (and I hope we never, EVER do).

EDIT: Something about uncle Jack and horses. Words are important!

Edited November 10, 2016 by eggclipse

[Time the Crestfallen]

I don't believe in the inviolable sacredness of life, but the death penalty is woefully inefficient, let alone what wrong convictions could result in. I'd be alright with it in truly exceptional cases, but even then it has to be when guilt if proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Rezzy]

I recently read a book on psychopathy, which made me think of an interesting dilemma.

To everybody, do you support the death penalty for psychopaths? There is pretty much no prospect of rehabilitating them and making them productive members of society. These are the most irredeemable of irredeemable, but it is due to a mental disability. Does this mental deficit make their crime more deserving of punishment or less?

[eclipse]

I recently read a book on psychopathy, which made me think of an interesting dilemma.

To everybody, do you support the death penalty for psychopaths? There is pretty much no prospect of rehabilitating them and making them productive members of society. These are the most irredeemable of irredeemable, but it is due to a mental disability. Does this mental deficit make their crime more deserving of punishment or less?

I support absolute isolation for them. If there's no one around to manipulate, they're less of a danger to everyone.

[Water Mage]

I recently read a book on psychopathy, which made me think of an interesting dilemma.

To everybody, do you support the death penalty for psychopaths? There is pretty much no prospect of rehabilitating them and making them productive members of society. These are the most irredeemable of irredeemable, but it is due to a mental disability. Does this mental deficit make their crime more deserving of punishment or less?

That's a the tricky about punishing psychopaths.

They might have done a lot of wrong things, but could it be said that is really their fault? After all, a psychopath is not someone who is born evil, but rather a people born without the ability to tell right from wrong. The didn't chose to be born like this. Would you punish someone for being born blind? Would you sentece someone to die because they are unable to understand right from wrong?

But then again they might do things that are considered unforgivable, and that excuse might not hold up. They aren't being sentenced to die because they don't understand right from wrong. They are being sentenced for other crimes.

But the reason they did those crimes might be because they are unable to tell right from wrong and....well as you can see I could on for hours. There's is no easy answer.

Which is why I said it was a tricky subject.

[Yojinbo]

I'll never support the death penalty under any circumstance. Suicide is the only acceptable way to 'artificially' end a life.

I support absolute isolation for them. If there's no one around to manipulate, they're less of a danger to everyone.

So because they were born with a mental or personal disorder they should be isolated for their whole lives?

[Life]

Down for death penalty but it needs reform. Like expediency.

Andrew Klavan has a really good idea for how to do it. Anyone sentenced to death has three people who work on his case for a full year. As in that is their only job. Their job is to find a way to exhonerate the person and nothing more. If he is not exhonerated by the 365th day, then the sentence is carried out that day.

​Some crimes simply require the death penalty in order to help the society heal from the sheer brutality of the crime. Case in point: Paul Bernando and Karla Homolka.

[Nym]

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying killing for passion/love/or other emotions are excusable. However, I do want to say that treating them as non-human for killing someone for those reasons is rather harsh. There is also things like manslaughter where there is no malice, but the person is still entirely responsible for killing another human being.

Why? They RUINED someone else's life, maybe even forever. It doesn't matter if the victim is alive or not, she/he will have aftermath after what happened (injuries, depression, not feeling good with his/her body anymore).

I didn't ask to kill them, just to lose the respect and losing a few rights. They don't go in vacation for years, they are in prison.

Yes, perhaps getting weapons in Canada and other countries is more difficult, but you can still acquire them if you appear to be mentally stable. Mental states could deteriorate due to conditions in your environment (such as an abusive relationship), or just old age/accidents. Granted this might be stretching it a little and I am not too informed on exact laws (i.e. is there like a check on gun owners every certain span of time or for other reasons (like accidents) and such), but the possibility is there. Not to mention illegal guns are pretty much available everywhere.

For weapons, we can't do anything about it but I can guarantee there's less death by guns here. Hell, I think I can even count it with my 2 hands.

About mental states, this is 90% of the time, a complete lie (for here in Canada, at least). It's either use a way to get less harsh punishements or to hide the fact that the culprit consumed drugs.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Nym

[Zanarkin]

Why? They RUINED someone else's life, maybe even forever. It doesn't matter if the victim is alive or not, she/he will have aftermath after what happened (injuries, depression, not feeling good with his/her body anymore).

I didn't ask to kill them, just to lose the respect and losing a few rights. They don't go in vacation for years, they are in prison.

That treatment is different than treating them as non-humans though. Treating them as non-humans could mean to treat them as animals. Which it isn't the case in the judicial system in Canada. Losing rights or respect does not make you less human. Nor should it be a reason to treat someone as less of a human.

The criminals treated their victims horribly and indeed left their life in a terrible state. I am not saying they should not be put in jail or make their sentences less severe/shorter. But I am saying that they should not be seen as non-human. To see them as monsters or animals (because most people don't normally see humans as animals) would easily allow the judicial system to institute cruel punishment and tortures.

An animal who kills a human is killed for the sake of others. Why should we treat a person who kills another person differently if they are non-humans?

[Augestein]

Tbh, I think that DP should only be reserved for truly heinous crimes of multiple accounts. It's simply not enough to just kill one person. The reason I say that, is because it needs to be something people are absolutely 100% certain on and not have a "hunch." I mean think about all of the cases that people have sat in prison for like 20 years and then been taken out of jail later because they found out that they were innocent. While their life has been shamefully messed up because of that, I don't think anyone would be happier that the person was killed and then found out to be innocent. At least with multiple offenses it'd be easier to felt justified in doing so.

And I agree with people saying that prison needs to work more on rehabilitation rather than just housing people for x amount of time. I also think that punishments where a 50 year old man is convicted of a murder and then you sentence him to 80 years in prison may as well be the death penalty. It's outrageous to give people time frames in prison where you KNOW that the person isn't going to live through it.