Death Penalty

[The Don]

I agree. Some people deserve to die, but not a single innocent person should die because some scumbags deserve it. There is zero doubt that innocent people have been executed and will continue to be. I guess that makes us 'bleeding heart liberals' as some idiots call us. Fine by me.

I respectfully disagree. IMO execution is the easy way out.

Full life incarceration without prospect of parole is a much harsher punishment.

 

[Parsman]

They haven't yet served the sentence of life without the prospect of parole.

I agree with you, in many ways it seems crueller to lock someone up for life where life means just that. It still allows for some form of restitution if a mistake is made and discovered which has always been my main motivation for being against the death penalty

 

[Stacyhs]

They haven't yet served the sentence of life without the prospect of parole.

I'm not disagreeing with you that, for some, that could well be true. But that was not my point which was: "Some people deserve to die, but not a single innocent person should die because some scumbags deserve it." I really don't know why you're taking exception to that. My point had nothing to do with which sentence, life w/out parole or execution, is worse.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not disagreeing with you that, for some, that could well be true. But that was not my point which was: "Some people deserve to die, but not a single innocent person should die because some scumbags deserve it." I really don't know why you're taking exception to that. My point had nothing to do with which sentence, life w/out parole or execution, is worse.

Agreed.

In my opinion, the question is not whether there are people who do not deserve to live; there probably are. The question is, are they worth our society getting their blood on our hands? Are they worth having executioners, death-rows, and running the risk of killing somebody who does in fact deserve to live? Especially since we have the option of simply locking them up for good. h

Hans

 

[Stacyhs]

Agreed.

In my opinion, the question is not whether there are people who do not deserve to live; there probably are. The question is, are they worth our society getting their blood on our hands? Are they worth having executioners, death-rows, and running the risk of killing somebody who does in fact deserve to live? Especially since we have the option of simply locking them up for good. h

Hans

Yes, that is my position. I'd rather not execute anyone than execute innocent people, even if I think some that aren't executed don't deserve to live.

 

[mgidm86]

They haven't yet served the sentence of life without the prospect of parole.

How many who have served life sentences have killed themselves? Not nearly enough to make that statement anywhere near true, at least that's what my quick googling said.

I think the desire for prison to be "cruel" is part of our overall problem here in the US.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Life in prison is still “life”.

Other than those in solitary confinement, prisoners can look forward to 3 square meals, social interaction, exercise, intellectual stimulation and entertainment via reading, educational pursuits, games, whatever. Maybe even some rewarding work.

Not what anyone would freely choose, but a life many would prefer over the alternative.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Life in prison is still “life”.

Other than those in solitary confinement, prisoners can look forward to 3 square meals, social interaction, exercise, intellectual stimulation and entertainment via reading, educational pursuits, games, whatever. Maybe even some rewarding work.

Not what anyone would freely choose, but a life many would prefer over the alternative.

As long as they are excluded from normal society, they can be treated like poisonous snakes in a zoo - fed and watered, but kept in a cage.

 

[Armitage72]

How many who have served life sentences have killed themselves? Not nearly enough to make that statement anywhere near true, at least that's what my quick googling said.

I think the desire for prison to be "cruel" is part of our overall problem here in the US.

Back when Paizo Publishing was publishing the official magazines for Dungeons & Dragons they published an editorial in one of their issues about how some prisons had banned D&D and the magazines for ridiculous reasons, such as the game promoting gambling (it uses dice) and containing maps (of fictional locations). They received letters from a number of readers who were upset that the company cared about the inmates and felt that they didn't deserve entertainment of any kind while they were locked up, regardless of their actual crimes.

 

[Stacyhs]

Boredom leads to violence. The more 'normal' their lives in the sense of having physical and mental exercise, positive things or goals to focus on, the less they turn to violence.

 

[bruto]

Life in prison is still “life”.

Other than those in solitary confinement, prisoners can look forward to 3 square meals, social interaction, exercise, intellectual stimulation and entertainment via reading, educational pursuits, games, whatever. Maybe even some rewarding work.

Not what anyone would freely choose, but a life many would prefer over the alternative.

Aside from that, an innocent person has at least a slim chance of exoneration before he dies. A person executed has none at all.

 

[Aridas]

"Some people deserve to die, but not a single innocent person should die because some scumbags deserve it."

An entirely reasonable statement. It's quite hard to disagree with, in and of itself. However, I think that it's worth noting that the reasons why one might find the death penalty acceptable aren't limited to just that. To poke an easy example, if the (perceived) risk associated with not simply ending the lives of those found to be sufficiently bad offenders is greater to innocent people than the risk associated with accidentally ending the life of an innocent person, that would make for a pretty direct counter to the principle you invoked. After all, those people are being executed because more harm to innocent lives would normally end up occurring than if they weren't, not because some nebulous "deserve" was invoked.

To be clear, I'm not making an argument for that position, specifically. Rather, this is one of the subjects where it's a bit too easy to effectively retreat to something like the claim that innocent lives are sacrosanct, which is something that I do take issue with. The moment that something is declared sacrosanct is pretty much the moment that one is declaring that they're simply unwilling to properly deal with the subject and leaves opening for practical absurdity.

 

[bruto]

An entirely reasonable statement. It's quite hard to disagree with, in and of itself. However, I think that it's worth noting that the reasons why one might find the death penalty acceptable aren't limited to just that. To poke an easy example, if the (perceived) risk associated with not simply ending the lives of those found to be sufficiently bad offenders is greater to innocent people than the risk associated with accidentally ending the life of an innocent person, that would make for a pretty direct counter to the principle you invoked. After all, those people are being executed because more harm to innocent lives would normally end up occurring than if they weren't, not because some nebulous "deserve" was invoked.

To be clear, I'm not making an argument for that position, specifically. Rather, this is one of the subjects where it's a bit too easy to effectively retreat to something like the claim that innocent lives are sacrosanct, which is something that I do take issue with. The moment that something is declared sacrosanct is pretty much the moment that one is declaring that they're simply unwilling to properly deal with the subject and leaves opening for practical absurdity.

I agree that making anything sacrosanct invites problems, and there are always going to be times where, though I think utilitarian positions are usually a bad idea, it might be necessary as a last resort. You can't eliminate all the ills of a society, and cannot save everyone, and cannot absolutely insure against mistakes and so forth.

But I think it would be hard to find that in the death penalty argument, where death and inaction are not a binary pair, and it's possible, I think, to address a wrong in a way that is not equally wrong. The death penalty virtually guarantees that a small percentage of utter mistakes will occur, and that when they do they will, by definition, violate the sanctity of life which is presumed to found its basis in the first place.

Of course I might not be thinking it through well. I'll have a nice long drink of moloko and put on some Beethoven and get back to you.

 

[Babbylonian]

Aside from that, an innocent person has at least a slim chance of exoneration before he dies. A person executed has none at all.

Unless they're in a state with a decent governor, that only applies if they're tried for the crime(s). If they plead guilty to avoid a death sentence, they're pretty much screwed regardless of evidence.

 

[Bob001]

An entirely reasonable statement. It's quite hard to disagree with, in and of itself. However, I think that it's worth noting that the reasons why one might find the death penalty acceptable aren't limited to just that. To poke an easy example, if the (perceived) risk associated with not simply ending the lives of those found to be sufficiently bad offenders is greater to innocent people than the risk associated with accidentally ending the life of an innocent person, that would make for a pretty direct counter to the principle you invoked. After all, those people are being executed because more harm to innocent lives would normally end up occurring than if they weren't, not because some nebulous "deserve" was invoked.
.....

What is that even supposed to mean? How is killing someone more effective at protecting "innocent lives" than locking him up for life? Some of the states with the highest crime rates also have the death penalty, and some without it have the lowest. Once someone is arrested, convicted and imprisoned, the community is protected. A life sentence still allows a miscarriage of justice to be discovered and corrected.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

What is that even supposed to mean?

I can only guess the meaning was that the death penalty acts as a large enough deterrent to committing capital crimes that overall, lives may be saved by its implementation.

 

[Segnosaur]

An entirely reasonable statement. It's quite hard to disagree with, in and of itself. However, I think that it's worth noting that the reasons why one might find the death penalty acceptable aren't limited to just that. To poke an easy example, if the (perceived) risk associated with not simply ending the lives of those found to be sufficiently bad offenders is greater to innocent people than the risk associated with accidentally ending the life of an innocent person, that would make for a pretty direct counter to the principle you invoked. After all, those people are being executed because more harm to innocent lives would normally end up occurring than if they weren't, not because some nebulous "deserve" was invoked.

What is that even supposed to mean? How is killing someone more effective at protecting "innocent lives" than locking him up for life?

There are 2 possibilities:

- That the possibility of a death penalty is more of a deterrent to a prospective murderer than life without parole.

- A prisoner with a life sentence still has the possibility of escape, and since they have killed before, they will have no hesitation to engage in more violence.

I used to support the death penalty, for pretty much that reason. (I have since switched my opinion; I recognize that the death penalty probably doesn't provide much of a deterrent since criminals probably think they won't get caught anyways.)

Overall, I have no problem with the concept of the death penalty. (I do think some people's crimes are so horrible that they should not even be allowed to spend life in prison. Serial killers, people who talk in movie theaters, etc.) But, I also recognize that the criminal justice system is incapable of reliably applying it to only those who deserve it. Too many innocent people convicted. So, good in theory, bad in practice.

Some of the states with the highest crime rates also have the death penalty, and some without it have the lowest.

"Some" is rather vague.

Overall, crime rates have so many factors, and the number of crimes that would qualify for the death penalty is rather small. I am not sure if much of a conclusion can be made from these statistics.

 

[Bob001]

There are 2 possibilities:

- That the possibility of a death penalty is more of a deterrent to a prospective murderer than life without parole.

- A prisoner with a life sentence still has the possibility of escape, and since they have killed before, they will have no hesitation to engage in more violence.
.....

1/ When someone commits a terrible crime, he either expects to get away with it, or he's in a state of mind such that he doesn't care if he gets caught. I don't believe he thinks "if I kill this clerk, I'll just spend the rest of my life in a cell, so why not?"

2/ You could make that argument about any violent felon: Violent in the past, violent in the future.But we don't use that logic to execute every violent felon, or even every convicted murderer. I would say somebody with a long history of violent crimes -- but no murders -- might be a greater public threat than someone who committed a murder impulsively, maybe under the influence. And in many cases he can plan on being released eventually.

 

[Bob001]

.....
"Some" is rather vague.

Overall, crime rates have so many factors, and the number of crimes that would qualify for the death penalty is rather small. I am not sure if much of a conclusion can be made from these statistics.

If someone is going to claim that the death penalty deters crime, then the rates of violent crime should be lower in states with the death penalty than those without it. But they're not. And as you observe, the death penalty is rarely imposed and even less frequently carried out, so who is being deterred from what?

But for reference:

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-...y-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

 

[Stacyhs]

An entirely reasonable statement. It's quite hard to disagree with, in and of itself. However, I think that it's worth noting that the reasons why one might find the death penalty acceptable aren't limited to just that. To poke an easy example, if the (perceived) risk associated with not simply ending the lives of those found to be sufficiently bad offenders is greater to innocent people than the risk associated with accidentally ending the life of an innocent person, that would make for a pretty direct counter to the principle you invoked. After all, those people are being executed because more harm to innocent lives would normally end up occurring than if they weren't, not because some nebulous "deserve" was invoked.

To be clear, I'm not making an argument for that position, specifically. Rather, this is one of the subjects where it's a bit too easy to effectively retreat to something like the claim that innocent lives are sacrosanct, which is something that I do take issue with. The moment that something is declared sacrosanct is pretty much the moment that one is declaring that they're simply unwilling to properly deal with the subject and leaves opening for practical absurdity.

Can you please clarify the highlighted statement? It's so convoluted that I'm not sure I'm interpreting it correctly.