Capital punishment

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah ... see my response to pseudo after I said that ... I used the question mark because I really don't have an answer. As I've also said, in theory I'm against capital punishment, but I could see that there might be a reason for it, but really don't have any concrete idea of just what and when. It scares me how it's been used in the past, and that has made me very outspoken in the past against. But, as I said, there could be a reason ... I just don't know what and when that would be, just that I'd be open to ideas and discussion.

 

Like so many issues like this that come down to deeper philosophical conceptions, the answer is more difficult than we frequently like to admit.  So I'm right there with you.

[jimmer]

I'm afraid I'm probably really hypocritical on this. In general I oppose the death penalty. I don't really know how I can say I'm pro-life and not be. However, if something sinister happened to one of my children I fear I would want justice in the form of death, whether that is justice or not. I can't quite reconcile it in my mind, but there are a few cases a year where I wish for the death penalty even though I'm opposed to capital punishment. I get that life without parole has no redeeming value, but I also can't stand the thought of putting family through letting the rapist/murderer walk because we have deemed them changed. I struggle with this issue a lot and have not come to grips with even how I feel.

 

As an aside Netflix has a series called I Am a Killer that they recently added interviewing people who committed murder and the first episode is about a guy who literally says he killed a guy in prison to get put on death row because he couldn't stand living in prison any longer. It caused me to have even more conflicted feelings on all of it. I actually felt sympathy for the guy because our legal system had failed him at so many turns.

one could say he failed society, the two people he killed, and himself even more than our legal system failed him. I have no sympathy for him.

[biggentleben]

With the privatization of prisons, it is incredibly profitable to have a life sentence, which gives tremendous incentive to a judge to send a person away forever. Until those incentives are removed, I'm tremendously conflicted. I'm not a fan, but I'm also having issues with those who have been sentenced to death and end up with someone sitting on death row for years and years due to trying to find more "humane" ways to do it.

[ashbury]

With the privatization of prisons, it is incredibly profitable to have a life sentence, which gives tremendous incentive to a judge to send a person away forever. Until those incentives are removed, I'm tremendously conflicted. I'm not a fan, but I'm also having issues with those who have been sentenced to death and end up with someone sitting on death row for years and years due to trying to find more "humane" ways to do it.

Fixing one ethical quagmire (for-profit prisons) with another (death penalty) isn't a good reason. But your observation does point up the terribly complex maze that crime and punishment puts us through.

 

I don't believe we have a good solution that checks all the moral checkboxes, where it comes to recidivist or heinous criminals, who need to be separated from the rest of society because of the high risk of havoc.

 

Those darn criminals need to stop giving me dilemmas!

[PseudoSABR]

 

Those darn criminals need to stop giving me dilemmas!

http://www.salemmarafi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/prisoners_dilemma.jpg

[Craig Arko]

http://www.salemmarafi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/prisoners_dilemma.jpg

See:

 

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/axelrod.html

[ashbury]

I knew that wording was a catchy one for some reason.

[one_eyed_jack]

I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons, but most significantly:

 

1) The number of DNA exonerations has proven that there are far, far more innocent people convicted of crimes that most folks are aware of, or at least willing to acknowledge.  The risk of an innocent person getting killed by the state is too high.

 

2) It doesn't work.  One of the main arguments in favor of the death penalties is deterrence.  Death penalty convictions are pretty concentrated in a relatively small number of jurisdictions.  If the death penalty were a deterrent, those jurisdictions would have consistently lower crime rates that comparable ones that do not have capital punishment.   But it's not the case.

[KirbyDome89]

I think we need to be honest about the cost of a failed rehabilitation. 

 

I can see the humanitarian aspect of rehabilitation, and I'd likely side with it in some cases, but I'm not in favor of it's use across the board.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think we need to be honest about the cost of a failed rehabilitation.

I think we need to be honest about the cost of not actually trying to rehabilitate.

[USAFChief]

 

I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons, but most significantly:

 

1) The number of DNA exonerations has proven that there are far, far more innocent people convicted of crimes that most folks are aware of, or at least willing to acknowledge.  The risk of an innocent person getting killed by the state is too high.

 

2) It doesn't work.  One of the main arguments in favor of the death penalties is deterrence.  Death penalty convictions are pretty concentrated in a relatively small number of jurisdictions.  If the death penalty were a deterrent, those jurisdictions would have consistently lower crime rates that comparable ones that do not have capital punishment.   But it's not the case.

/end thread

[KirbyDome89]

 

I think we need to be honest about the cost of not actually trying to rehabilitate.

The future burden that individuals who commit hideous crimes place on society is paid monetarily rather than with human lives. It's not an enviable choice but it's the lesser of two evils. 

 

There are individuals and actions that necessitate permanent removal from society. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The future burden that individuals who commit hideous crimes place on society is paid monetarily rather than with human lives. It's not an enviable choice but it's the lesser of two evils. 

 

There are individuals and actions that necessitate permanent removal from society. 

I agree that there are people who are so bad that they become irredeemable. I'm okay with paying for them to live in a cage for the rest of their lives.

 

But one cannot look at our correctional facilities and say with a straight face that we make an honest attempt to rehabilitate the masses of people who are redeemable.

[USAFChief]

 

The future burden that individuals who commit hideous crimes place on society is paid monetarily rather than with human lives. It's not an enviable choice but it's the lesser of two evils. 

 

There are individuals and actions that necessitate permanent removal from society. 

Concur. Life without Parole is a necessary option. And I wouldn't waste a penny on rehab for these individuals.

 

A couple things we could do:

 

Legalize and/or decriminalize drug crimes. We'd drop the number of people needing incarceration. 

 

Separate violent and non violent offenders in prison. We shouldn't subject persons who haven't committed violent crimes to violence, which is inevitable under the current situation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Concur. Life without Parole is a necessary option. And I wouldn't waste a penny on rehab for these individuals.

 

A couple things we could do:

 

Legalize and/or decriminalize drug crimes. We'd drop the number of people needing incarceration. 

 

Separate violent and non violent offenders in prison. We shouldn't subject persons who haven't committed violent crimes to violence, which is inevitable under the current situation.

These are the bare minimum of things we should be doing.

 

But I'll add a third no-brainer:

 

Eliminate private prisons.

 

When your goal is to rehabilitate and alleviate the state and tax payer burden of incarceration, using a capitalistic system of businesses who profit from incarceration is in direct opposition to the stated goal. Their literal business model is to do the exact opposite of what we need them to do.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I agree that there are people who are so bad that they become irredeemable. I'm okay with paying for them to live in a cage for the rest of their lives.

 

But one cannot look at our correctional facilities and say with a straight face that we make an honest attempt to rehabilitate the masses of people who are redeemable.

Sure, and I'm not claiming they're doing the best job they can with the current set up. My point was that there needs to be a line drawn regarding who is and isn't eligible for rehabilitation. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Sure, and I'm not claiming they're doing the best job they can with the current set up. My point was that there needs to be a line drawn regarding who is and isn't eligible for rehabilitation. 

I find your use of the word "eligible" highly problematic.  I'm not sure we can know who would benefit from rehabilitation without actually trying to rehabilitate a person.  Once people serve their time, they will be free again, and if we deem them non-eligible for rehabilitation than we're essentially paving the way for recidivism.

 

Beyond those whom we sentence to life in prison (setting aside that moral problem), every person should be "eligible" for rehabilitation.   (Let's not forget that incarceration is far more expensive than probation, and arguably less effective at preventing recidivism).

[Squirrel]

Sure, and I'm not claiming they're doing the best job they can with the current set up. My point was that there needs to be a line drawn regarding who is and isn't eligible for rehabilitation.

 

This kind of brings us back to the beginning of this discussion ... where is that line and how do we draw it?

[KirbyDome89]

 

I find your use of the word "eligible" highly problematic.  I'm not sure we can know who would benefit from rehabilitation without actually trying to rehabilitate a person.  Once people serve their time, they will be free again, and if we deem them non-eligible for rehabilitation than we're essentially paving the way for recidivism.

 

Beyond those whom we sentence to life in prison (setting aside that moral problem), every person should be "eligible" for rehabilitation.   (Let's not forget that incarceration is far more expensive than probation, and arguably less effective at preventing recidivism).

Lack of eligibility = should not be out. There are individuals who have demonstrated that they cannot operate within the agreed upon morals of society and therefore they shouldn't be given the same opportunities as those who have committed lesser offenses. It's really that simple. 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

This kind of brings us back to the beginning of this discussion ... where is that line and how do we draw it?

In a grey area and with pencil. 

[Craig Arko]

I think Tolkien was right here.

 

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

[PseudoSABR]

 

Lack of eligibility = should not be out. There are individuals who have demonstrated that they cannot operate within the agreed upon morals of society and therefore they shouldn't be given the same opportunities as those who have committed lesser offenses. It's really that simple. 

It's not simple at all.

 

Let's not pretend that the current sentencing scheme separates those beyond help with those who might be rehabilitated.  Plenty of non-murderers spend their lives in prison and receive little-to-no rehabilitation services.  Too many are trapped in cycles of lesser-crimes, and we end up paying for decades of their incarceration instead of spending to rehabilitate them (and avoid recidivism). 

 

There may be those beyond our help, but determining who precisely those people are will necessarily (and should) be a painful process that will invariably get it wrong some of the time.  Let's hope we learn from our case-by-case mistakes, and not create black-letter law that would simply incorporate such mistakes in the name of judicial efficiency. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think Tolkien was right here.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

Indeed. 

 

Yet the ignorant will still answer, "Yes, let me give it to them!"

[Mike Sixel]

 

Indeed. 

 

Yet the ignorant will still answer, "Yes, let me give it to them!"

 

Or, the thoughtful will say that someone that raped, say, 20 children, doesn't need anything more.......or are you saying we should keep someone alive for 40+ years in jail, even if they did that? Or, maybe you really think everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Or, the thoughtful will say that someone that raped, say, 20 children, doesn't need anything more.......or are you saying we should keep someone alive for 40+ years in jail, even if they did that? Or, maybe you really think everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant.

The quote that Craig posted about dealt with a close call (a pitiable case); not those who obviously are beyond redemption. In fact that's the whole point of the quoted material is that not every case of wrong-doing deserves the ultimate punishment. 

 

Everyone here is far too smart/savvy to be characterized at all by ignorance; my apologies if I made it seem otherwise. 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

The quote that Craig posted about dealt with the close calls; not those that obviously were beyond redemption. In fact that's the whole point of the quoted material--that not every case of wrong-doing deserves the ultimate punishment. 

 

Everyone here is far too smart/savvy to be characterized at all by ignorance; my apologies if I made it seem otherwise. 

 

fair.....but that's the question here.....is there a line some would not cross at all? Like, I think if someone admits doing something like that, and wants death, I would allow the state to do that......so for me, as much as I hate what the state does with its power at times.....there are times it makes sense to give the state ultimate power (or, in some ways, the criminal gets to chose death....so maybe it isn't the state that has the power there either).

[PseudoSABR]

 

fair.....but that's the question here.....is there a line some would not cross at all? Like, I think if someone admits doing something like that, and wants death, I would allow the state to do that......so for me, as much as I hate what the state does with its power at times.....there are times it makes sense to give the state ultimate power (or, in some ways, the criminal gets to chose death....so maybe it isn't the state that has the power there either).

For me, there is. I wouldn't necessarily impose this belief on others, but I can't really believe that any person should just be executed. I know many do not share the belief, but I think that murderers (and the like) are created not born. That is, it seems to be a feature/bug of our modern culture that a good deal of those-beyond-all-hope occur with regularity. To the extent you take mercy on such individuals, it is chiefly important to protect the public above all else.  Beyond that, why not seek to understand how the criminal became what he was, and if as a by product, that person gains something like rehabilitation, so be it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

For me, there is. I wouldn't necessarily impose this belief on others, but I can't really believe that any person should just be executed. I know many do not share the belief, but I think that murderers (and the like) are created not born. That is, it seems to be a feature/bug of our modern culture that a good deal of those-beyond-all-hope occur with regularity. To the extent you take mercy on such individuals, it is chiefly important to protect the public above all else.  Beyond that, why not seek to understand how the criminal became what he was, and if as a by product, that person gains something like rehabilitation, so be it.

 

I think that's fair, and I spend about 40% of my time in that space...and about 50% in let them die if they want, and 10% in a state of confusion on this topic....

[KirbyDome89]

 

It's not simple at all.

 

Let's not pretend that the current sentencing scheme separates those beyond help with those who might be rehabilitated.  Plenty of non-murderers spend their lives in prison and receive little-to-no rehabilitation services.  Too many are trapped in cycles of lesser-crimes, and we end up paying for decades of their incarceration instead of spending to rehabilitate them (and avoid recidivism). 

 

There may be those beyond our help, but determining who precisely those people are will necessarily (and should) be a painful process that will invariably get it wrong some of the time.  Let's hope we learn from our case-by-case mistakes, and not create black-letter law that would simply incorporate such mistakes in the name of judicial efficiency. 

I haven't supported anything you're talking about here...

[PseudoSABR]

 

I haven't supported anything you're talking about here...

You said: "There are individuals who have demonstrated that they cannot operate within the agreed upon morals of society."

 

And I pushed back against the idea you can easily determine who such individuals are...

 

If you agree that figuring out the irredeemable is a bit of gray area, we're on the same page.