Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Scotty on May 01, 2009, 06:01:25 pm
-
I was recently inspired on the "sentencing to death in FreeSpace" thread to start another argument: the death penalty.
If it gets out of hand, I blame SpardaSon:Also, death sentences are useful. If there's some serial killer out there, killing him is the easiest and most simple way to make sure he doesn't kill anyone ever again. I would rather see a serial killer executed than in a comfy prison cell where everything is provided for him by the taxpayers.
Feel free to discuss.
-
It's too subjective. The factors you have to take in to determine who dies and who doesn't are so many and varied you'll never get an even shake for people.
-
Personally, I do not think enough people get the death penalty in western society.
-
:jaw: You and I agree on something!
Keeping serial killers and brutal murderers fed, housed, and otherwise completely taken care of for the rest of their lives is too damn expensive, as well as too good for them.
-
Oh joy yet another hot topic, to bad I hate their clothes.
Quite frankly both sides are going to be extremely entrenched in their views, they will roll out all their arguments and neither side will concede for 5-10 pages, unless some lucky sod can derail the thread.
-
I agree as well. In Canada the average life sentence is about 5-8 years.
-
Which completely defeats the point of a 'life' sentence. The crimes committed are so bad, or so many, that the convicted should never see the light of day while not in prison again. The only way a life sentence should be commuted is if evidence surfaces that proves that the convicted did not in fact actually commit the crime(s).
EDIT: @StarSlayer: I love these kind of threads.
-
Actually, the death penalty is super expensive. I think the best compromise would be to put all the serial killers, brutal murderers, rapists (especially of children), etc. in little concrete boxes and then bury the boxes somewhere, and let the ****ers rot.
-
Actually, the death penalty is super expensive. I think the best compromise would be to put all the serial killers, brutal murderers, rapists (especially of children), etc. in little concrete boxes and then bury the boxes somewhere, and let the ****ers rot.
<_kr4m3r> so many ****ing criminals, its bull****
<foniks`> heh, if we sent all the criminals to some empty continent and just left them there to die
<foniks`> and showed up like 50yrs later like, "sup?"
<foniks`> whatd u think they'd say?
<FoSZoR[bg]> something along the lines of, "G`Day mate"
-
:lol:
-
I don't like the death penalty. Life in prison is a much worse punishment than death. With death, you get your injection/electricity/noose/axe and then it's all over. (actual) Life in prison requires you to actually live for the whole time in your cage until you die naturally.
Also, there's always the chance that 10 years down the line they find some DNA that proves that you didn't do it. It would definitely suck if they had killed you first.
-
Prison and death are both better than what is deserved.
The death penalty should be cheap, painful, and drawn-out.
-
If I recall correctly someplace used finish sentencing, take you out back and shoot you. Then charge your family for the rounds. I assume it doesn't get much cheaper then that
-
That's a bit off. Family wasn't involved.
Let's do the door with rocks piled on bit by bit thing!
-
Prison and death are both better than what is deserved.
The death penalty should be cheap, painful, and drawn-out.
So we stick them all in an IRC chat room with you and give them each a gun and one bullet. Shouldn't take long before the problem solves itself. :p
-
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.
-
Also, there's always the chance that 10 years down the line they find some DNA that proves that you didn't do it. It would definitely suck if they had killed you first.
And this is really the only argument you need against the death penalty.
I want to know how many people who are currently for it would continue to think it was a good idea if they were the ones facing it for a crime they didn't commit.
-
I see it's going to be a looooong Spring...
-
This is going to quickly devolve into a flame-war, you know.
-
Only if Trashman, Knight Templar, Liberator, High Max, or Blue Lion show up. Everyone else is able to be reasonable and not flamey.
-
I have never flamed anyone here :wtf:
Also, I made the second post in the thread.
-
Your tone is unpleasant and irritating.
-
You don't like my tone? That's not flaming :wtf:
-
KT isn't as bad, but QFT on the rest.
I agree with kara/HT/whoever's viewpoint on the subject.
-
Only if Trashman, Knight Templar, Liberator, High Max, or Blue Lion show up. Everyone else is able to be reasonable and not flamey.
I gotta admit I haven't been great lately. I've snapped at Mobius a few times.
As for the initial argument, Scotty, you are aware that Death Row is actually really expensive, right?
-
As it is, the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.
-
Except in those few rare cases where the inmate wants to die and doesn't appeal. Those are the ones we need to commute to life. When they can't stand being in jail that bad keep them there.
-
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.
Never has an author so conveniently summed up my opinion on a relevant ethical question.
-
Well, first my view about "view as guilty-> shoot immediatly" vs "10 years in death row, then kill" (like in the USA afaik):
In the first case it's very cheap, but you get a LOT of innocents, while the latter protects innocents better, but is quite expensive. There's also a sliding scale in between. Always keep that in mind while arguing about the price.
Well, my view on the matter itself:
pro death sentence:
feeling of revenge makes it less painfull for the victims/relatives of the victims
dead people can't endanger anyone
contra:
if the government shows that killing people is ok, even good, the society will learn this as well. As a result, people will be more ready to kill themselves on average.
it's unavoidable that innocents are killed (though it's unavoidable that innocents are imprisoned.. it's a matter of severity)
more expensive (if you try to weaken this argument, you are probably strengthening the one above)
if people know death sentence awaits them, they got nothing to lose.
neutral/refutable:
prevention - people rarely commit crimes in the believe to get caught, especially in the case of severe crimes ->little to no effect
cheaper - not true, or only true in case of endangering innocents (strengthening the counterargument above again)
"the executioner has killed a person, and needs now to be executed as well" - murder =! killing people
"killing is always wrong" - i don't believe in this, it's justifiable in self-defense, and certainly elsewhere
it's justice (eye for an eye..) - don't believe in this either
All in all, while being neutral if you exclude the first contra argument, this argument is sever enough for me to be against any death penalty, in any case.
I had discussions to solve this particular problem, but we didn't get a workable solution.
So, I'll probably go back to lurking.
-
This is going to quickly devolve into a flame-war, you know.
It will quickly evolve into the peace and quiet of multiple monkeyings if it does.
-
Can anyone (try to) explain in simple terms why the death penalty is expensive?
-
Performing one involves a lot of people, for long periods of time (some fo them very well payed).
-
The reason why I created that thread was discussing the subject. I think I should have created a thread here on General Discussion, instead.
Despite what people think, death sentences are being progressively phased out. It's one of the many barbarian feature of modern society, and it will soon disappear.
Come to think to it, which countries are relying on death penalties? Iran? China? Even mentioning them is self explanatory... :rolleyes:
And now, the most important thing. Imagine that you've been accused of a crime even if you're innocent - I don't think that's a nice experience. If you're sentenced to death, you die and full stop. If you're sent to jail, you may get out from it after a while if you're proved innocent (and, believe me, that happens). In the wise words of Roberto Benigni, "I don't want to share even 1/60,000,000 of the responsibility for killing a person on purpose." Killing is a crime, and if a state kills a person all citizens are somewhat responsible.
It's quite funny how people who think that death penalties are a good thing get tremendously scared when thinking about the bad consequences.
Can anyone (try to) explain in simple terms why the death penalty is expensive?
Performing one involves a lot of people, for long periods of time.
I heard that recent studies show how death penalty is expensive AND doesn't prevent crimes from occurring. Think about how death penalties are carried on - don't you need money? A lot of money?
Even if it's not expensive, do you think earning money is a good reason to kill people that should stay in jail instead? :wtf:
-
Can anyone (try to) explain in simple terms why the death penalty is expensive?
Court costs. The defendant usually spends many years on Death Row during which they usually launch appeal after appeal. Prisoners serving time (even those in for a life term) tend to spend less time on appeal.
Sure you can cut down on the number of appeals but only if you're willing to let more innocent people get executed.
-
I heard my name called!
Anyway, my opinion, since that is what was asked for, is this:
Due process is all fine and good, we don't want to punish an innocent man after all, but once due process is over, then the needle or gas or rifle or whatever is deemed an appropriate death is handed down ASAP. ASAP does not mean 5, 10 or 20 years after the final appeal. ASAP would be a maximum of a couple weeks to allow the condemned to make his final preparations.
The death penalty should be reserved for the heinous offenders such as serial killers, serial rapists, and organized crime figures primarily. I do not believe that the penalty should be handed down in single murders or other violent crime, I favor a Life sentence, preferably at hard labor for this class of offenders.
I'll extend this discussion a little with the following. Prison is not tough enough these days. I'm not saying they should be gulags, but I would only extend limited privileges to people who are incarcerated. Including limited fitness equipment, a library and self-improvement facilities. I would not allow "cable television", but providing an outlet to stay informed of current events would be adequate. Also, I would limit communication with the outside even more than it already is for lifers and max/supermax inmates with the warden given wide latitude with how he deals with discipline within his facility, but with strong oversight with monthly inspections to ensure that inmates are being well-treated and not abused or taken advantage of. Prison is for criminals to be punished for whatever wrong-doing they have perpetrated on society, the purpose to lock away the ones who are recidivists and train and prepare the rest to return to society better prepared to deal with they're situations.
A lot of recidivism stems from the fact that parolees are not necessarily put into a position to where they can say "No" to they're old lives and habits. Offenders often return to the exact same circumstances that led them to prison in the first place. A system needs to be in place to ensure that they make strong decisions.
-
The question remains: how can you be 100% sure that the person you're about to condemn to death is fully responsible for the crimes he/she's been accused of?
-
The question remains: how can you be 100% sure that the person you're about to condemn to death is fully responsible for the crimes he/she's been accused of?
Even if you could, death penalty would still be an ugly thing.
-
Why is death penalty considered heavier as a punishment than not being allowed to actually live for the rest of your life?
Everyone dies anyway, so what's the point? Wouldn't it be more of a punishment to put your ass in a cell with very limited amount of things you would be allowed to do, until you die anyway? If it is punishment you are after, that is. If you just want to get rid of the convict, that's a different matter... but even then there's the very real issue of possibly convicting an innocent. Which, to me is unacceptable. Due process or without. Like the wise old man said... even the very wise cannot see all ends.
-
Why is murder considered a heavier crime then if everyone is just going to die anyways?
-
I agree as well. In Canada the average life sentence is about 5-8 years.
That is complete and utter bull****, cole. Anyone sentenced to LIFE is also given an accompanying parole eligibility. For adults, first degree murder is a mandatory 25 year sentence (and they can begin applying for parole under the so-called "faint hope clause" after 15 years but granting under that provision is rare). Second degree murder carries a minimum 10 years. (Youth are different.)
Life sentences don't mean life in prison, but they mean life in the justice system. Offenders given a life sentence may get parole, but it is a permanent state - that reporting provision and record never go away. They spend the rest of their lives reporting on a regular basis to CSC parole officers. They are restricted in where they can work, travel, and vacation.
There is this notion that floats around laypeople who think that there are no consequences to a life sentence when that is anything but the case. In addition, the recidivist rate for people with life sentences is basically non-existent.
-
Now that I've cleared up a misconception, I'm of two minds about the death penalty.
1. The death penalty is more expensive than life sentences. Violent crime rates are significantly higher in jurisdictions that have the death penalty (an interesting correlation, I always thought). We cannot establish absolute guilt. Introduction of DNA evidence has exonerated numerous people given life sentences. The chance of putting an innocent person to death is too high. It is already unconscionable how many people serve sentences for crimes they did not commit.
That said...
2. Some offenders, notably serial killers (who, by the way, gain a lot of notoriety but are extremely rare) cannot be rehabilitated or made to function in society and keeping them in prison for the remainder of their lives is a huge taxpayer expense. If we can find a way to reduce the cost of the death penalty and simultaneously apply it only to the most dangerous offenders whose guilt is a 100% absolute, then I would support it. Cases like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen in Canada are perfect examples that would meet these criteria. However, those cases are so rare it makes the point essentially moot.
-
I agree as well. In Canada the average life sentence is about 5-8 years.
That is complete and utter bull****, cole. Anyone sentenced to LIFE is also given an accompanying parole eligibility. For adults, first degree murder is a mandatory 25 year sentence (and they can begin applying for parole under the so-called "faint hope clause" after 15 years but granting under that provision is rare). Second degree murder carries a minimum 10 years. (Youth are different.)
Life sentences don't mean life in prison, but they mean life in the justice system. Offenders given a life sentence may get parole, but it is a permanent state - that reporting provision and record never go away. They spend the rest of their lives reporting on a regular basis to CSC parole officers. They are restricted in where they can work, travel, and vacation.
There is this notion that floats around laypeople who think that there are no consequences to a life sentence when that is anything but the case. In addition, the recidivist rate for people with life sentences is basically non-existent.
My apologies, it was a semi-off-the-cuff argument, and the media portrays it that way. (which is why I hate CTV)
-
I can not even imagine a justice system, a government or whatever, that I would trust enough to warrant it a legal right to kill members of general public. The fact that general public goes around killing each other is bad enough. :P Another thing I hate in CP is how the act of killing a person is made responsibility of the system (that is, nobody is responsible).
-
There comes a point where I think the death penalty is the only viable recourse. This is a nebulous thing, I fear, one I tend to think should be applied on a case-by-case basis. There are three crimes I am willing to countance its use for, four if you want to get technical; it could be argued sociopathy is a prerequisite for any of them, I suppose, but that is a judgement I think is immaterial. Multiple murder, multiple rape, and what I can only describe as "destruction or attempted destruction of personality" because I don't know if a proper term for it has ever been codified; part abuse, part brainwashing, as it were. Multiple is required in the first two cases because one is always possible without realizing what is being done (although I thought long and hard before deciding rape deserved that, given that while murder can take only an instant, rape is, by nature, somewhat involved), but if one truly believed they had done something horrible the first time, a second would not an issue. The third is something one has to premeditate more or less. It cannot be a crime of passion.
-
The question remains: how can you be 100% sure that the person you're about to condemn to death is fully responsible for the crimes he/she's been accused of?
After 10+ years of appeals and the associated investigations and so forth, if a person hasn't provided enough evidence in they're favor, they are in all likelihood guilty. Sure some new test that only requires one DNA molecule may show up 10 years down the road. Something may come up after the fact. In the rare cases where that happens it's a tragedy.
The fact remains that you can't maintain an honest and fair judicial system based on "what ifs" and "maybes".
-
The question remains: how can you be 100% sure that the person you're about to condemn to death is fully responsible for the crimes he/she's been accused of?
After 10+ years of appeals and the associated investigations and so forth, if a person hasn't provided enough evidence in they're favor, they are in all likelihood guilty. Sure some new test that only requires one DNA molecule may show up 10 years down the road. Something may come up after the fact. In the rare cases where that happens it's a tragedy.
The fact remains that you can't maintain an honest and fair judicial system based on "what ifs" and "maybes".
But our judicial system does run on 'what ifs' and 'maybes'. Proving reasonable doubt, accumulating sufficient evidence...there are rarely certainties.
I'm with Mobius on this one. Instead of execution, put 'em in cryo!
-
What I meant is you can't take a guy that has exhausted the numerous appeals that the system gives him and stuff him away in a cell on the off chance something comes up that exonerates him. I wouldn't even push for the death penalty in cases where it's that shaky most of the time.
-
Yeah you can. What you mean is you don't want to.
-
It is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.
-
I think that it's better that they rot away in a cell, it's actual punishment.
-
I think that it's better that they rot away in a cell, it's actual punishment.
What we really need to consider is what actual good comes of punishment? We're aiming for deterrence, and surely there must be a better way to deter crime than to divert active, able-bodied citizens away to guard, feed and clothe other able-bodied citizens.
-
I think that it's better that they rot away in a cell, it's actual punishment.
What we really need to consider is what actual good comes of punishment? We're aiming for deterrence, and surely there must be a better way to deter crime than to divert active, able-bodied citizens away to guard, feed and clothe other able-bodied citizens.
Well, execution arguably diverts even more able-bodied citizens, since you not only need to keep them on Death Row for a long time (just as long as these 'life sentence' folks actually stay in prison), but you have to go through multiple appeals, and then you actually need to perform the execution.
Presumably, though, the people who do all this work are working in the prison system voluntarily, so isn't it just a case of creating more jobs?
-
I think that it's better that they rot away in a cell, it's actual punishment.
What we really need to consider is what actual good comes of punishment? We're aiming for deterrence, and surely there must be a better way to deter crime than to divert active, able-bodied citizens away to guard, feed and clothe other able-bodied citizens.
There's an adage that comes to mind: punishment must be sharp, swift, and sure for it to be a deterrent for crime. As punishment is none of these things in a fair justice system, there isn't much point in aiming for deterrent effect.
Seriously, the vast majority of studies have found that types and lengths of punishment have almost no effect on the crime rate, other than punishments that keep criminals out of circulation longer lower the crime rate in a localized fashion (and more server punishments, like the death penalty, correlate to a localized INCREASE in the severity of violent crime). Rehabilitation works for only a very, very limited few.
Personally, I like the idea of penal colonies. Canada should establish theirs near Alert Bay :P
-
Rehabilitation works for only a very, very limited few.
I find it weird that the idea of rehabilitation will never work because criminals have some kind of disease or something that prevents them from never committing that crime again.
Basically we're saying the reasons these people commit crimes can never be changed?
-
Basically we're saying the reasons these people commit crimes can never be changed?
The crime with the lowest recidivist rate is murder. Why? The vast majority of murders are so-called "crimes of passion." The only person that ever had anything to fear from the perpetrator is the now-dead individual. That is why the majority of people who commit murder never go on to commit other serious crimes.
However, "ordinary" violent crime (assault, sexual assault, robbery, uttering threats, etc) isn't so simple. With the exception of sexual assault, all of those crimes are heavily tied to social living conditions - the poorer you are, the more likely to commit those crimes. The same goes for property crimes and crimes like heavy drug use. Now, the problem is that inevitably people get caught, and 8-12 months later when they've finished with the justice system they go serve a prison sentence. While in prison, they are forced into a series of programs and education designed to rehabilitate them and make them productive members of society. They are eventually paroled and the sentence expires. So where's the problem?
The problem is that none of the measures taken in prison address the fundamental problem: social conditions. People turn back to community supports, and the supports offenders are used to are other offenders. They go right back to the people they were involved with before their sentence - which, more often than not, gets them right back into the activities that sent them to prison in the first place.
The best way to reduce recidivism is to reduce the time spent in prison for less-serious offences and dramatically increase the level of social support outside of the prison system. People with positive community ties are much less likely to commit crimes.
There are a million and one reasons why people break the social contract and participate in criminal activity and we're never going to address them all, but the idea of rehabilitation is flawed from the get-go. It assumes the reason the person committed a crime is entirely internal, when most criminal activity has more to do with where the person lives and who they associate with. And yes, there are always going to be the people who stand up and say "I grew up in XYZ and turned out just fine! If I can do it, anyone else can! All they need to do is work hard!". Bull****. The people who manage to escape those social conditions have better supports than the people who don't.
So - the short is no, we're probably not going to change the reasons people commit crimes. Our best strategy is to get the low-risk offenders out of prison and into a healthy social environment as quickly as possible while making sure the high-risk and repeat offenders get locked away for as long as possible.
-
That's just good rehabilitation.
-
Well, execution arguably diverts even more able-bodied citizens, since you not only need to keep them on Death Row for a long time (just as long as these 'life sentence' folks actually stay in prison), but you have to go through multiple appeals, and then you actually need to perform the execution.
Presumably, though, the people who do all this work are working in the prison system voluntarily, so isn't it just a case of creating more jobs?
I would argue that the death row appeals process and waiting time is the result of a broken justice system, but hey...
-
In which case the broken justice system needs to be fixed before anyone else gets executed.
-
Correction. It needs to fixed to eliminate the long delays before people are executed.
-
That's my basic feeling, once appeals are exhausted, they still sit around for anywhere from 5 to 20 years.
-
In that case, taxpayers still have to pay for housing and food, and for the method to kill people, and cyanide is expensive too...
Which kinda ruins the arguments brough t up first, doesn't it?
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.
Never has an author so conveniently summed up my opinion on a relevant ethical question.
Agreed, Tolkien FTW.
-
Correction. It needs to fixed to eliminate the long delays before people are executed.
Even if that is true, it still requires a moratorium on current executions.
-
nuke em all and let god sort em out*
*nuke does not believe in god