Capital punishment

[TheLeviathan]

The problem is in codifying any attempt to declare people irredeemable.  We might agree who is "obviously" beyond the line from time to time, but that line will move for different people.  And you eventually have to set parameters around such a thing.

 

While I agree in theory (and emotionally) with the argument that we should declare some people beyond redemption....how would we even attempt to codify such an approach?

[ashbury]

The problem is in codifying any attempt to declare people irredeemable.  We might agree who is "obviously" beyond the line from time to time, but that line will move for different people.  And you eventually have to set parameters around such a thing.

 

While I agree in theory (and emotionally) with the argument that we should declare some people beyond redemption....how would we even attempt to codify such an approach?

We don't seem to have as much difficulty with this, when it's life without parole instead of execution. Other than the inability to correct an execution if exculpatory evidence comes along 40 years later, they are more or less equivalent - the convicted person's normal life with society is over. The bar is set high for life in prison, but not so high that we have these discussions where it's argued that lines can't even be drawn.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We don't seem to have as much difficulty with this, when it's life without parole instead of execution. Other than the inability to correct an execution if exculpatory evidence comes along 40 years later, they are more or less equivalent - the convicted person's normal life with society is over. The bar is set high for life in prison, but not so high that we have these discussions where it's argued that lines can't even be drawn.

 

Yes, we do codify that, but I guess I was approaching the conversation from the perspective of an ideal world.  And, to be frank, our laws about who is imprisoned for life are far from ideal and I'm not sure I'd agree that the bar is always high. I wouldn't be comfortable at all with equating "life in prison" with "irredeemable" in the current frame.  There is such a wide degree in variance from state to state, judge to judge, and jury to jury about how to sentence people that I'm not really comfortable with that.

 

I think your point just moves the goalposts.  If we say, "Ok, irredeemable is anyone we sentence to life in prison" then I'd counter that we need to take a serious look at that declaration. Yes, we can codify it, but in it's current state I'd say we do a pretty crappy job of that.  There are people being imprisoned for life for drug possession and a host of other things I certainly don't consider "irredeemable".  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yes, we do codify that, but I guess I was approaching the conversation from the perspective of an ideal world.  And, to be frank, our laws about who is imprisoned for life are far from ideal and I'm not sure I'd agree that the bar is always high. I wouldn't be comfortable at all with equating "life in prison" with "irredeemable" in the current frame.  There is such a wide degree in variance from state to state, judge to judge, and jury to jury about how to sentence people that I'm not really comfortable with that.

 

I think your point just moves the goalposts.  If we say, "Ok, irredeemable is anyone we sentence to life in prison" then I'd counter that we need to take a serious look at that declaration. Yes, we can codify it, but in it's current state I'd say we do a pretty crappy job of that.  There are people being imprisoned for life for drug possession and a host of other things I certainly don't consider "irredeemable".  

Yeah, in a world where we declare 15 year olds "irredeemable" with a life sentence, taking the state's word for it seems a touch misguided.

[KirbyDome89]

 

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. 

Yep, I've said from the get go that I'm in favor of drawing a line. That's it. 

 

"Easy," was your addition, not mine.

[biggentleben]

One question to toss into this...if a person sentenced to life without parole requests to end his/her life, what say you?

 

I really struggle with that one. I would be good with eliminating the death penalty and having our most restrictive penalty be life without parole, but then what do you do with the person who no longer wants to be alive in that situation? The person is not getting out at any time, and he/she is costing taxpayers money every day of the sentence - is that person allowed to request his/her life to be terminated?

 

This obviously gets into another area of morality, but something that rattles in my mind...

[Craig Arko]

 

One question to toss into this...if a person sentenced to life without parole requests to end his/her life, what say you?

 

I really struggle with that one. I would be good with eliminating the death penalty and having our most restrictive penalty be life without parole, but then what do you do with the person who no longer wants to be alive in that situation? The person is not getting out at any time, and he/she is costing taxpayers money every day of the sentence - is that person allowed to request his/her life to be terminated?

 

This obviously gets into another area of morality, but something that rattles in my mind...

Yup, that one beats out any old trolley problem as a toughie. I would be inclined to allow it, but I'm sure there will always be exceptions.

[Mike Sixel]

why wouldn't you allow it? Suicide should be legal anyway. It's stupid, imo, that we tell old people that are suffering that it is wrong to move on.

[ashbury]

why wouldn't you allow it? Suicide should be legal anyway. It's stupid, imo, that we tell old people that are suffering that it is wrong to move on.

I started to split this off as a thread of its own, but maybe you aren't quite that serious about an assisted suicide tangent.

 

I'll ask, though, whether you have been intimately involved with end-of-life situations? Because it's exactly at those times that the person in question is least able to make the necessary clear judgement, while turning over the decision to relatives or others opens up various cans of worms. At this point, I think Hospice care is the farthest we can go without using that can opener. Hospice currently is for diagnosed terminal conditions, while you are talking about incurable pain, which overlaps greatly but isn't identical. There's the old saying that suicide is too often a permanent solution to a temporary problem, so you'd better be super sure that the suffering is itself permanent. That darn Hippocratic Oath intersects both Death Penalty and Assisted Suicide discussions. (And will you look at that - I've circled back to the thread topic. )

[Mike Sixel]

 

I started to split this off as a thread of its own, but maybe you aren't quite that serious about an assisted suicide tangent.

 

I'll ask, though, whether you have been intimately involved with end-of-life situations? Because it's exactly at those times that the person in question is least able to make the necessary clear judgement, while turning over the decision to relatives or others opens up various cans of worms. At this point, I think Hospice care is the farthest we can go without using that can opener. Hospice currently is for diagnosed terminal conditions, while you are talking about incurable pain, which overlaps greatly but isn't identical. There's the old saying that suicide is too often a permanent solution to a temporary problem, so you'd better be super sure that the suffering is itself permanent. That darn Hippocratic Oath intersects both Death Penalty and Assisted Suicide discussions. (And will you look at that - I've circled back to the thread topic. )

 

That's why it is important to have that stuff in writing way ahead of time. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yep, I've said from the get go that I'm in favor of drawing a line. That's it. 

 

"Easy," was your addition, not mine.

You said it was "simple." But whatever. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

why wouldn't you allow it? Suicide should be legal anyway. It's stupid, imo, that we tell old people that are suffering that it is wrong to move on.

 

I feel like the strongest objection is that allowing them to die is catering to their wishes.  Why grant requests like that if living is suffering?

 

Not saying I agree.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You said it was "simple." But whatever. 

The idea that some should and other should not receive rehabilitation is simple. 

 

You're reaching for something when there's nothing there at this point.

[Badsmerf]

Nice point ash. This topic doesn't get a whole lot of ink, but maybe it should. I think we need to start having these conversations in order to move forward and reform our system. What we're doing isn't working, and the less we talk about it, or argue about it, the less effective it becomes. The advent of prisons for profit has to be an incentive for what have today. People getting paid... legally... for murder? Unless the person is in our collective unrehabilitatable category, how could you as an employee kill that person? That job description makes me sick to my stomach, and reminds me of some hunger games ****. What the **** are we doing?

[Brock Beauchamp]

The idea that some should and other should not receive rehabilitation is simple.

 

You're reaching for something when there's nothing there at this point.

But that’s the point. It’s NOT simple. Each person has a sliding scale... and that’s how we got here in the first place.

[KirbyDome89]

 

But that’s the point. It’s NOT simple. Each person has a sliding scale... and that’s how we got here in the first place.

If you want to argue in the margins about who should and shouldn't receive rehab then feel free, but that isn't what my posts pertained to despite effort to paint them as such. 

 

Either nobody gets it, everybody gets it, or it's granted on a case by case basis, i.e. some get it and others don't. It's not hard to see which option is superior here. 

[Squirrel]

 

If you want to argue in the margins about who should and shouldn't receive rehab then feel free, but that isn't what my posts pertained to despite effort to paint them as such. 

 

Either nobody gets it, everybody gets it, or it's granted on a case by case basis, i.e. some get it and others don't. It's not hard to see which option is superior here. 

Um ... which is superior?

[KirbyDome89]

 

Um ... which is superior?

Do you really think everybody, regardless of their crimes, deserves a chance at rehabilitation and assimilation back into society? 

 

Do you think it's a good practice to forego rehabilitation altogether? 

 

The answer should've been obvious....

[Squirrel]

Do you really think everybody, regardless of their crimes, deserves a chance at rehabilitation and assimilation back into society? 

 

Do you think it's a good practice to forego rehabilitation altogether? 

 

The answer should've been obvious....

And, again ... we are back to the beginning. Who deserves it and who doesn’t? Where is that line and how is that decided? Does a jury Decide? A judge? What is the criteria for unredeemable?

[Mr. Brooks]

I just want to take a moment to caution that the attitude that locking people up doesn't do any good has real consequences too.

 

There is an awful story in the Strib right now about a Valleyfair employee who was brutally raped.

The man who raped her was on probation after serving just 90 days in jail for raping a 14 year old girl.

While on probation, he was convicted of felony burglary, and committed 3 other probation violation, and yet faced no prison time.

He should never have been free to rape again.

 

As hard as it is to understand why, some people are just predators who only care about their own desires, and IMO can't be rehabilitated. Or, at least the small chance they can be is offset by the danger they pose to society.

[Badsmerf]

I just want to take a moment to caution that the attitude that locking people up doesn't do any good has real consequences too.

There is an awful story in the Strib right now about a Valleyfair employee who was brutally raped.

The man who raped her was on probation after serving just 90 days in jail for raping a 14 year old girl.

While on probation, he was convicted of felony burglary, and committed 3 other probation violation, and yet faced no prison time.

He should never have been free to rape again.

As hard as it is to understand why, some people are just predators who only care about their own desires, and IMO can't be rehabilitated. Or, at least the small chance they can be is offset by the danger they pose to society.

A different type of failure in our system. Sometimes people fall through the cracks. I'd argue if our system was structured differently, and put more emphasis on jailing people that are a harm to society, these types of things would happen less.

 

This guy obviously needs to be in jail, and might not ever be rehabilitated. I still think, even this guy could change his life around at some point. Obviously, time spent in jail wasn't helpful, but I'd say it wasn't enough, and the crimes committed should have given him a ticket back immediately.

[Mike Sixel]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-supreme-court-tosses-out-death-penalty/

 

[Badsmerf]

Congratulations to Washington.

[PseudoSABR]

Trump's response to today's shooting: we need to use the death penalty more.

[Mike Sixel]

Out of curiosity, what should happen to this shooter? Life in jail? Is that better than death? What if he wants to die?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The extreme left: Yells at a politician in a restaurant.

 

The extreme right: mass casualty shootings.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The extreme left: Yells at a politician in a restaurant.

The extreme right: mass casualty shootings.

Death penalty for both!

[ashbury]

 

Snowflakes.

[Mr. Brooks]

Sorry, in the abstract I try to reason with myself that I should be anti death penalty on principle.

 

But then I inevitably come across a news story like this.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-husband-and-wife-admit-filming-themselves-raping-babies-young-8-months-1197148

 

I realize this isn't a death penalty case. But it should be.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sorry, in the abstract I try to reason with myself that I should be anti death penalty on principle.

But then I inevitably come across a news story like this.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-husband-and-wife-admit-filming-themselves-raping-babies-young-8-months-1197148

I realize this isn't a death penalty case. But it should be.

 

Right, it's a struggle....they should never get out of jail.