Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Phantom Hoover on April 30, 2014, 03:41:43 pm
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/clayton-lockett-oklahoma-execution-witness
As if capital punishment wasn't already enough of a shambles.
-
TBH, lethal injection is, in general, a rather inhumane way of executing people, exactly because things like that happen. I don't know why they still use this. A competent firing squad or even a good ol' hanging is much quicker and harder to mess up than lethal injection. Oh, and "gruesome" beheading with a guillotine might in fact be even quicker and less painful than those two. I only remember one case (Luis XVI of France) in which it didn't kill in one go.
-
The death sentence is a barbaric and inhumane punishment that is proven to be ineffective.
-
And the US's obsession with making it look civilised and medical has made it even less humane, and has cost them access to vital medical supplies because they can't be trusted to obey the ****ing Hippocratic oath. It's appalling; at least people like Dragon are willing to accord some weight to the grotesque ugliness of purposefully killing another human being rather than sweep it under the rug.
-
@The E: It may not be an effective deterrent, but it's effective at getting rid of them.
-
It's not, though. The appeals process and associated legal theatre (I'd like to pretend it made the system fairer) makes it significantly more expensive to execute someone than to simply imprison them for life.
-
Getting rid of them is not that helpful either.
Damage has already been done by the time the sentence is applied, and only serves to quell personal grudges.
-
@The E: It may not be an effective deterrent, but it's effective at getting rid of them.
No, it's not. It's really, really not. Killing the odd murderer does not solve the problem of criminals murdering civilians or each other.
-
Getting rid of them is not that helpful either.
Damage has already been done by the time the sentence is applied, and only serves to quell personal grudges.
Ideally it would be cheaper than incarcerating such an inmate for the rest of his/her natural life, which could be a significant drain on penal resources.
As is, it's ridiculous. I'm still in favor of the concept on rare occasions, but the execution is appalling.
-
Thomas Ketchum, 37
Execution: 26 April 1901
State: New Mexico
Method: Hanging
What happened: Because executioners had too much rope and built the gallows too tall, Ketchum fell with such force that “His head was severed from the body by the rope as if by a guilllotine,” as the San Francisco Chronicle told it at the time. “The headless trunk pitched forward toward the spectators and blood spurted upon those nearest the scaffold.”
Win!!
Anniversary of my birthday btw.
-
@The E: It may not be an effective deterrent, but it's effective at getting rid of them.
<disagreement>
them = the person being executed
-
i'm honestly confused, what are you trying to say
-
:sigh: It was a statement of the obvious.
For example: executing Bob is an effective way of getting rid of Bob. Substitute any name.
-
too bad the baby raper that was supposed to go on after him didnt get the same treatment.
we should go back to hangings.
-
:sigh: It was a statement of the obvious.
For example: executing Bob is an effective way of getting rid of Bob. Substitute any name.
Wouldn't Bob take heavier measures to prevent being caught if he strongly suspected his life was forfeit?
-
I'm pretty strongly opposed to the death penalty generally, but the way the US does it just seems... well, baffling. There are so many ways to painlessly kill people. Why not put them under sugical style general anaesthetic and then OD them with morphine or something? Or suffocate with CO2 the way we humanely kill lab animals for dissection? Why mess around with conscious prisoners at all if you're going to kill them? Bizarre.
-
I'm pretty strongly opposed to the death penalty generally, but the way the US does it just seems... well, baffling. There are so many ways to painlessly kill people. Why not put them under sugical style general anaesthetic and then OD them with morphine or something? Or suffocate with CO2 the way we humanely kill lab animals for dissection? Why mess around with conscious prisoners at all if you're going to kill them? Bizarre.
This thread's been something of a revelation for me, I always thought the lethal injection was a swift, clean and painless procedure. So now I'm just completely baffled that it isn't, like you. It doesn't make sense that it isn't.
-
the whole prison system is a mess. its also way down at the bottom of our priorities, so its the thing that gets neglected. in a us prison, you will be raped, murdered, forced to join a gang, used for slave labor, denied treatment for mental illnesses, abused by guards, executed (sometimes with horrible results) and the whole system is rigged so that if you actually get out of jail, its very easy to go back to jail. its also very easy to go to jail in the first place, stupid **** like drug abuse and skipping school or being drunk in public.
-
Just out of curiosity, anyone know what is Oklahoma's (and other states that practice capital punishment) view on euthanasia?
-
i dont think euthanasia is legal anywhere in the us. remember this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Kevorkian
yea things didnt end to well for him.
-
I'm pretty strongly opposed to the death penalty generally, but the way the US does it just seems... well, baffling. There are so many ways to painlessly kill people. Why not put them under sugical style general anaesthetic and then OD them with morphine or something? Or suffocate with CO2 the way we humanely kill lab animals for dissection? Why mess around with conscious prisoners at all if you're going to kill them? Bizarre.
The people backing the death penalty don't want a humane death (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbAmu3DXk5c#t=46m) for their victims.
-
I'm not opposed to people paying for their crimes with their life in concept. But the system of capital punishment in the US is stupid and ridiculous. And I don't think a capital punishment system will ever really work (i.e. 100% sure criminal is guilty). And there are so many factors that get brought into the criminal justice system already (say higher numbers of minorities in prison), that there is no point in actually using capital punishment. How we do things is stupid.
-
people pay for their crimes with their lives all the time, just not in the way you think. you go to jail for any number of years, life automatically becomes a world of ****. you spend years wracking up psychological damage from the brutal way we run our prisons. then when you come out a felon, you essentially become a second class citizen (and if you were already a minority, it becomes worse). so you end up, at best, working a **** job with little chance of advancement. you have to meet conditions of parole, show up at drug meetings and see your parole officer, pay fines, and of course you have to pay for any court ordered treatment the judge demanded, you need to pay for transportation and you have a curfew on top of that. like i said its rigged to get you back into the prison system. i actually think 20+ year sentence and subsequent parole (at least the way we do it) is more cruel and unusual than the death penalty.
-
TBH, lethal injection is, in general, a rather inhumane way of executing people, exactly because things like that happen. I don't know why they still use this. A competent firing squad or even a good ol' hanging is much quicker and harder to mess up than lethal injection. Oh, and "gruesome" beheading with a guillotine might in fact be even quicker and less painful than those two. I only remember one case (Luis XVI of France) in which it didn't kill in one go.
I agree, by the time you'll hear the bullet, you'd have well been long dead if shot successfully in the head. For the guy who had a blunt guillotine, people probably wished him a painful death if you know what i mean.
As far as beheading goes, use an axe, not a sword. And if a guillotine, must be properly weighted and sharpened. However a bullet through the head, not a bad suggestion.
-
i like the thrown into pit with big hungry cats method too.
-
i dont think euthanasia is legal anywhere in the us.
Actually, "assisted suicide" (euthanasia "lite") is legal in Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana. Full-blown euthanasia is legal in California.
-
people pay for their crimes with their lives all the time, just not in the way you think. you go to jail for any number of years, life automatically becomes a world of ****. you spend years wracking up psychological damage from the brutal way we run our prisons. then when you come out a felon, you essentially become a second class citizen (and if you were already a minority, it becomes worse). so you end up, at best, working a **** job with little chance of advancement. you have to meet conditions of parole, show up at drug meetings and see your parole officer, pay fines, and of course you have to pay for any court ordered treatment the judge demanded, you need to pay for transportation and you have a curfew on top of that. like i said its rigged to get you back into the prison system. i actually think 20+ year sentence and subsequent parole (at least the way we do it) is more cruel and unusual than the death penalty.
Yes, this is another reason I'm generally not fond of an idea of stuffing criminals in prison and calling it a day. After coming out of prison, one's life is ruined, and this makes them either end up back in there, or join a gang and fuel the ranks of organized crime. Minor criminals should go to community service (would save the community some money, too), the worst ones should be executed (via guillotine or a firing squad, lethal injection being saved to the most heinous), and those in the middle should be given physical punishment. It turns out pain is a rather effective, if crude, way to get a "don't EVER do this again" point across (source in a Polish science magazine, so excuse me for not linking it). For white-collar criminals (scammers, corporate thieves, etc.), the best punishment would probably be invalidating their credentials and fining them a lot (effectively knocking them down to a lower class, and also locking them out whatever they tried to steal from). Prisons should only be used as a temporary solution, or changed into labor camps where "community service" is done for those that are bad, but not quite warranting something worse.
-
Replace community service with national service. but no "con platoons" Just one felon per squad of volunteers/enlisted men. Armed service tends to iron out criminal behaviour, sociopathic tendancies is a different matter.
-
The problem is, felons come in all sizes, shapes and genders, and places they could possibly be stuffed in the military generally demand a lot of physical fitness. I can hardly see IPAC ironing criminal behavior out of anyone (in fact, probably the opposite, given what I heard of it... :) ), you'd have to send them into some heavy jobs (but maybe not into grunts, because then you'd be giving them guns). And even the fit ones would not want to be there, and drag down actual professional soldiers, much like conscripts usually do. Community service (I suppose you could call it "national service" if you made it large enough scale, a viable option), especially in a labor camp with a military-style discipline (possibly employing military veterans), would be a better choice. Also, this option doesn't let felons close to guns, which is something you'd probably want to avoid, too.
-
If the directing staff and NCO's don#t want them near guns. They won't get near guns ;)
And, they all end up the same shape :yes:
-
TBH, lethal injection is, in general, a rather inhumane way of executing people, exactly because things like that happen. I don't know why they still use this. A competent firing squad or even a good ol' hanging is much quicker and harder to mess up than lethal injection. Oh, and "gruesome" beheading with a guillotine might in fact be even quicker and less painful than those two. I only remember one case (Luis XVI of France) in which it didn't kill in one go.
It's not for the benefit of the person who gets the injection.
It's for appearing more "humane" to the general population... after all it's "just" a needle, nothing barbaric like an axe or firearm or :gasp: noose, right?
As you rightly point out it's rather idiotic and still barbaric ... i.e. what the rest of the civilized (non US) world has been saying for decades.
-
It boggles my mind that in this day and age there is even a debate about how to execute people. General anesthesia has been known for a century or two. Problem solved.
If you are going to kill people in revenge the least you can do is to do it properly..
-
It's not for the benefit of the person who gets the injection.
It's for appearing more "humane" to the general population... after all it's "just" a needle, nothing barbaric like an axe or firearm or :gasp: noose, right?
As you rightly point out it's rather idiotic and still barbaric ... i.e. what the rest of the civilized (non US) world has been saying for decades.
Yeah. TBH, my biggest problem isn't with the execution causing pain (some people, and I'm using the term loosely, deserve a painful, slow death), but with people who claim it's "humane" and get horrified by other methods, including firing squad and beheadings (still used in Saudi Arabia, and from what I've heard, a pretty clean way of execution if done well). Let's not deceive ourselves about it. Either the execution is supposed to hurt, and then lethal injection isn't a bad choice, or it is supposed to be painless, and then we're just better off cutting their heads off.
I'm not sure how precisely Saudis behead people, but it'd be very funny (if you're into that sort of humor) if it turned out US could learn from Saudis, of all people, how to execute people in a painless way.
-
Yeah. TBH, my biggest problem isn't with the execution causing pain (some people, and I'm using the term loosely, deserve a painful, slow death), but with people who claim it's "humane" and get horrified by other methods, including firing squad and beheadings (still used in Saudi Arabia, and from what I've heard, a pretty clean way of execution if done well).
No. The entire point of the criminal justice system is to impose a measure of impartiality on the process of meting out punishment for a given crime, making sure that the severity of the punishment is determined by the facts of the case, not how enraged the public is over it.
As such, and bearing in mind that human rights are a thing that everyone enjoys, not just those who haven't been convicted of a crime, it is the duty of the criminal justice system to make sure that if punishment is necessary, it isn't unnecessarily violent, or painful. If you have a system that uses the death sentence, that means that death should be quick and undramatic, not drawn out.
-
As such, and bearing in mind that human rights are a thing that everyone enjoys, not just those who haven't been convicted of a crime,
I think this is actually a point where I'd have to disagree, in terms of extreme cases. When someone commits a crime of the magnitude that would normally warrant the death penalty, they essentially flagrantly disregard the social contract that exists in order to safeguard and extend those human rights. Such outright contempt for human rights demands a punishment that fits the crime.
-
(some people, and I'm using the term loosely, deserve a painful, slow death)
I am surprised to hear this from you Dragon. The type of people you are thinking of should be killed I think, providing we're absolutely 100% sure they were the one responsible, but not in revenge, but to protect the rest of us from these monsters due to the threat they pose. We should make the death as quick and painless as possible because we are better than them. It would be done because we had to do it, not because we wanted to. Because these people were such an immense threat.
-
The entire criminal justice system is built on the theory that it is better that one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail (hence reasonable doubt, etc), so why is the execution system built on the theory that they're probably guilty, so **** them?
-
I feel the price of freedom is eternal vigilance etc.
-
As such, and bearing in mind that human rights are a thing that everyone enjoys, not just those who haven't been convicted of a crime,
I think this is actually a point where I'd have to disagree, in terms of extreme cases. When someone commits a crime of the magnitude that would normally warrant the death penalty, they essentially flagrantly disregard the social contract that exists in order to safeguard and extend those human rights. Such outright contempt for human rights demands a punishment that fits the crime.
I agree. That is exactly what I was talking about. We can talk about morality and "being above things", but there are cases in which human rights can and should be suspended, because the one in question is hardly a human, clearly displaying extreme contempt for the very things that make us human. They are few and far between, but such horrible cases do exist.
That said, I don't think a special provision for them is really necessary. Let's not forget those cases are rare, and in practice, a painless death kills them just as well. Even if there are people who'd fully deserve a painful, horrible death, it's probably impractical to go out of our way to provide this option. Also, I don't think that in our society the judge would actually have the courage to declare even the most evil person inhuman. Even if everyone silently thought that, speaking it out loud is a wholly different matter, and it's though to find someone with enough courage to do it in public, in person.
I am surprised to hear this from you Dragon. The type of people you are thinking of should be killed I think, providing we're absolutely 100% sure they were the one responsible, but not in revenge, but to protect the rest of us from these monsters due to the threat they pose. We should make the death as quick and painless as possible because we are better than them. It would be done because we had to do it, not because we wanted to. Because these people were such an immense threat.
See above. "Regular" death penalty is about removing a threat to humanity, however there are cases that go far beyond that. It's hard to imagine right until it happens. Good things it's so rare.
The entire criminal justice system is built on the theory that it is better that one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail (hence reasonable doubt, etc), so why is the execution system built on the theory that they're probably guilty, so **** them?
Note that actually getting a person executed is, from what I've seen, rather difficult. When someone is handed off to execution system from justice system, it's imperative that they are proven beyond any doubt to be guilty. When we're talking executing people, we're generally assuming they've been very definitely proven guilty.
-
See above. "Regular" death penalty is about removing a threat to humanity, however there are cases that go far beyond that. It's hard to imagine right until it happens. Good things it's so rare.
Why do you want to make them suffer? What is the purpose?
-
It does promote the question that, if even the State cannot tell the difference between Justice (removing a proven threat to society) and Vengeance (torturing someone to death for gratification purposes), how can they expect their citizens to do so?
-
It does promote the question that, if even the State cannot tell the difference between Justice (removing a proven threat to society) and Vengeance (torturing someone to death for gratification purposes), how can they expect their citizens to do so?
Exactly, I was ready to bring this exact point up if the topic turned to vengeance being a good enough reason. And then if you've got the justice system behaving like that, you're going to get crowds baying for blood, you're going to get revenge being seen as acceptable in society because the law says it is acceptable.
-
(some people, and I'm using the term loosely, deserve a painful, slow death)
Before we get too off subject with the idea of executing people is that we need to get rid of this notion asap. Humane non-barbaric execution is what civilized people do. The idea with what you said is just horrid, and just shouldn't happen in an enlightened civilization.
People shouldn't seek in anyway to do to the offender what that offender has done to others. Prolonging suffering during an execution is just evil. It's this whole entire notion that we are better than what the offender who will be executed which is why forms of humane execution even exist.
If people desired slow painful deaths for offenders worthy of the death penalty, then people either aren't thinking clearly, or are more likely a psychopath.
EDIT: not calling you a psychopath. I was referring to people who yearn for such torture of others.
-
Replace community service with national service. but no "con platoons" Just one felon per squad of volunteers/enlisted men. Armed service tends to iron out criminal behaviour, sociopathic tendancies is a different matter.
thats a good way to deal with the 18-28 bracket. turns out the skills young gang bangers have is compatible with that of the military. they want hooligans. i know a couple guys who were sentenced to the marine corps, they turned out ok.
-
Skills, yes. Attitude, not in the slightest. The US military is transitioning to a garrison force, not an expeditionary one. Those kinds of people are not welcome in garrison.
-
its not something that is done a whole lot though, usually it comes as a result of the judge once having been a marine. when its done, boot camp usually stomps out the criminal out of em though.
-
I'd support the death penalty if the following were true:
1. We are absolutely certain of the actual guilt of the sentenced person and no innocent people are ever sentenced to death;
2. Death sentences are ultimately cheaper to carry out than life in prison; and,
3. It is used only in the most extreme circumstances and rarely.
Since death penalties never meet all of those criteria (in fact, 1 and 2 are never met and 3 is rare), I am firmly not in favour of them.
-
Yep, that tends to be my view on it too.
-
(some people, and I'm using the term loosely, deserve a painful, slow death)
Humane non-barbaric execution is what civilized people do.
I would argue that any kind of execution is probably what civilized people don't do.
-
My own personal opinion is that the Death Penalty is wrong, but if it is going take place, then it needs to be done in a manner that does not glorify the viciousness of the crime by 'emulating' the suffering of the victim. That's not what the Death Penalty is for.
The moment it becomes a matter of gloating over another persons suffering, any kind of moral high ground gets very shaky indeed.
-
Skills, yes. Attitude, not in the slightest. The US military is transitioning to a garrison force, not an expeditionary one. Those kinds of people are not welcome in garrison.
Agreed completely. All US soldiers I've met are examples of just how efficient "boot" is at breaking and making individuals who comply to the chain of command and are one of many, meaning that they've submitted to the whole they're part of. There are more than a few bad apple squaddies over here who improved during phase one basic. Cons would warrant special attention and I guarantee they wouldn't have a choice to turn back down any path.
-
As such, and bearing in mind that human rights are a thing that everyone enjoys, not just those who haven't been convicted of a crime,
I think this is actually a point where I'd have to disagree, in terms of extreme cases. When someone commits a crime of the magnitude that would normally warrant the death penalty, they essentially flagrantly disregard the social contract that exists in order to safeguard and extend those human rights. Such outright contempt for human rights demands a punishment that fits the crime.
For a crime that contempts human rights, give a punishment that contempts human rights?
That seems to give out the message that human rights are flexible not so important to begin with.
-
I'd support the death penalty if the following were true:
1. We are absolutely certain of the actual guilt of the sentenced person and no innocent people are ever sentenced to death;
2. Death sentences are ultimately cheaper to carry out than life in prison; and,
3. It is used only in the most extreme circumstances and rarely.
Since death penalties never meet all of those criteria (in fact, 1 and 2 are never met and 3 is rare), I am firmly not in favour of them.
How come fact 2 is never met?
-
Because ensuring criterion 1 is fantastically expensive and often requires that you keep the condemned in jail for a decent fraction of a life sentence anyway.
-
TBH, criterion 1 and it's problems hold for any penalty. It's technically "never met", because we are not omniscient (there aren't many cases where the murderer is caught standing over the victim's body with a bloody knife), so it's a question of how much certainty is "good enough".
Criterion 2 is an economic matter (do you have any numbers on how much an executed person vs. life inmate cost?), and while costs of fulfilling criterion 1 are hard to cut, they're universal to life sentences, too (as you wouldn't want an innocent to be stuck in prison for life, wouldn't you?).
Criterion 3 is highly debatable when you get down to it. What are "extreme circumstances"? Armed robbery? A 1st degree murder (certainly an abominable act)? Rape and murder? Running an organized gang with multiple murders on account? Genocide? Also, what is "rarely"? Once per year? Worse, what if there's a place in the world so rotten that extreme circumstances (once we agree what they are) happen frequently? Depending on where we draw the line, we might end up with a "paper" death penalty (turns out it's indeed the case in some countries) pretty much reserved for deeds so heinous they can't happen in a normal situation (such as genocide, national treason of the kind last seen in WWII...), or we end up executing half the population of Limerick (though this might seem like a nice perspective to some, Limerick being what it is...).
For me, it boils down to the question of what is really worthy of death penalty. I have absolutely no sympathy for murderers and rapists (and I can't fathom why anyone would, TBH), so my proposal is to start with those. Some would say it's too harsh, though.
-
There are a boatload of criminology studies that demonstrate that the cost of life imprisonment is actually significantly less than a death sentence - namely because of the appeals process necessary to ensure the improperly convicted are never executed. That said, the appeals process still doesn't guarantee that innocent people are not ultimately put to death. In point of fact, it's a certainty that innocent people have been executed in the US, given the number of death-row exonerations in recent history.
The only certainty that's good enough is absolute certainty - one innocent person executed is one too many, and since we can never establish guilt with absolute certainty, it's unreasonable to put people to death... especially since it's more expensive than simply keeping them locked away until they expire of their own accord.
Don't get me wrong... if we could ensure certainty and cheaper expenses, there are some crimes (multiple murders, torture) that I would sincerely prefer to see punishable by the death penalty, but it just isn't practical.
There's also a rather strange sociological correlations that jurisdictions that use the death penalty tend to have higher rates of serious violent crime than those without, all other variables being pretty much the same. It's not a totally compelling reason to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances, but it's yet more information that sits in the column that favours true life imprisonment as a more appropriate penalty.
And let's be clear.... complete life imprisonment (as is possible in the US and Canada, at any rate, I know total life imprisonment is relatively rare in other countries) is actually a pretty harsh punishment, especially in a 'supermax' setting. Imagine spending the rest of your life in a 4'x8' space with no human contact except the guards with an hour a day for exercise. Not a very nice existence.
-
Forbes actually has a great article on costs of the death penalty: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/
-
Gosh. Looks like you're right. I knew death penalty costs more than most others, but not that much more. All moral divagations aside, it might be better to get rid of death penalty in the current form just because of economic reasons at those rates. Come to think of it, if the prisoners sentenced to a life without parole were put to work, they could provide some monetary income which could go towards compensating both the state and the victims. Reminds me of one particularly useless PFC who ended up carrying a plant around with him (by DI's orders) all the time during basic. When asked about it, he was supposed to say it's to replace oxygen he wasted. :) Given the sorry state economy is those days, this could help somewhat. Though knowing the public opinion, they'd cry "Gulags!" the second such idea is proposed...
There's also a rather strange sociological correlations that jurisdictions that use the death penalty tend to have higher rates of serious violent crime than those without, all other variables being pretty much the same. It's not a totally compelling reason to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances, but it's yet more information that sits in the column that favours true life imprisonment as a more appropriate penalty.
Actually, on this count, I'd rather say it's the opposite. The nature of the parallel between violent crime rates and death penalty might as well that of a common cause. The view on violence varies greatly across the world and is usually ingrained in the regional culture. Texans and Scots don't seem to mind it, while for example Germans seem utterly terrified by it (at least going by some of the laws I heard of...). This means both less psychological barriers when it comes to violently assaulting someone, and also less qualms about executing criminals. As such, removing death penalty might in fact worsen the situation in such places, and probably won't improve it.
-
Given the sorry state economy is those days, this could help somewhat. Though knowing the public opinion, they'd cry "Gulags!" the second such idea is proposed...
And they'd be wrong why, exactly? Given the economic realities of the US, using prisoners as slave labor would undercut the low income sector, making the people in that sector even more vulnerable to the temptations of crime than they are already.
Actually, on this count, I'd rather say it's the opposite. The nature of the parallel between violent crime rates and death penalty might as well that of a common cause. The view on violence varies greatly across the world and is usually ingrained in the regional culture.
Or it might be an indication that the death penalty isn't seen as a particularly hard form of punishment.
Texans and Scots don't seem to mind it, while for example Germans seem utterly terrified by it (at least going by some of the laws I heard of...).
Wait, hang on, since when are the scottish in favour of the death penalty? I thought they wanted to stay in the EU....
Also, us germans? We're not particularly terrified of violence. We're terrified of the consequences of giving the state the right to impose lethal penalties on its citizens.
This means both less psychological barriers when it comes to violently assaulting someone, and also less qualms about executing criminals. As such, removing death penalty might in fact worsen the situation in such places, and probably won't improve it.
There's no way around this: You're talking out of your ****ing ass.
-
Given the sorry state economy is those days, this could help somewhat. Though knowing the public opinion, they'd cry "Gulags!" the second such idea is proposed...
And they'd be wrong why, exactly? Given the economic realities of the US, using prisoners as slave labor would undercut the low income sector, making the people in that sector even more vulnerable to the temptations of crime than they are already.
Nowhere, just in the part it's somehow a bad idea. The Gulags were not a bad idea in principle, it's just that Soviet had no qualms of putting a whole lot innocent people in there, and that left a pretty big stigma on a pretty viable idea. Also note that not all prisoners would be used as slave labor, just the ones sentenced to life without a chance of parole. It should be an option for others, too, but as a separate kind of sentence ("hard labor" as opposed to "prison").
Or it might be an indication that the death penalty isn't seen as a particularly hard form of punishment.
Except that states that practice death penalty still have the full scope of other penalties available. If it's like you say, it should result in a lack of decrease at most, not increase, unless chances of getting sentenced to death are very high (not a good thing).
Texans and Scots don't seem to mind it, while for example Germans seem utterly terrified by it (at least going by some of the laws I heard of...).
Wait, hang on, since when are the scottish in favour of the death penalty? I thought they wanted to stay in the EU....
Also, us germans? We're not particularly terrified of violence. We're terrified of the consequences of giving the state the right to impose lethal penalties on its citizens.
Well, it seems to me that Germany (or at least those that make it's laws) are averse to everything drastic in general, and to violence in particular. Gun laws even stricter than the rest of the EU, heavily restricted depictions of violence in media (especially video games), stuff like this. Germany shields even adult citizens from perfectly viable, if drastic material. Also, note that at this point, I wasn't talking about death penalty, but about cultural look on violence in broader scope. Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to bring that up, it's a bit outside of the scope of this thread.
My point was that cultures more inclined to violence are also more inclined to support death penalty. I then gave examples of how different the outlook on violence can be across the world, but now that I look at it, it was related a bit too tangentially. There are other factors that influence popularity of death penalty in particular, and in cases such as Scotland, they're probably prevailing. I don't know what Scots would say if actually presented in this proposal, but my guess is that they would be, on average, less against it than, say, the British (this is just theorizing, though. I haven't gone and asked every single one of them).
There's no way around this: You're talking out of your ****ing ass.
Was this jump to conclusion too far? OK, perhaps I should elaborate. My point is, the relation between death penalty support and violent crimes is not a casual one in either direction, but rather one of a single, common cause, rooted in culture. In other words, such people have harsher criminals, and also harsher punishments for crimes. As such, removing the harsher punishment would do nothing to remove the harsher criminals, quite the contrary, it might take pressure off them. My conclusion follows from this.
-
This (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/study-suggests-that-4-of-the-people-we-put-on-death-row-are-innocent/) is also relevant. Especially for anyone who thinks we could bring the cost of executions down.
-
i think if we drop them alive into a giant meat grinder and then feed the remains to the other inmates, that might save some cash.
-
Forbes actually has a great article on costs of the death penalty: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/
Just because it's on forbes.com does not mean it's a real "Forbes" article. When there's "/sites" in the url, it means it's just some random contributor, one who doesn't need to meet any kind of accuracy or impartiality standards.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled morbidity.
-
Forbes actually has a great article on costs of the death penalty: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/
Just because it's on forbes.com does not mean it's a real "Forbes" article. When there's "/sites" in the url, it means it's just some random contributor, one who doesn't need to meet any kind of accuracy or impartiality standards.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled morbidity.
Do you have data that refutes the point made in the article?
-
Do you have data that refutes the point made in the article?
Just stating for future reference. Not that this particular one was inaccurate (didn't even read it), just pointing out that saying something is a "Forbes Article" just because it's on forbes.com is a bad reason to assume it is correct.
-
Way I see it, that's a useless point to make though. If an article is factually inaccurate, that's something that needs to be pointed out, if it is factually accurate but posted next to factually inaccurate articles, that's not.
-
There are many ways to kill people, and some are more evil than others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster)...
-
I don't really get why Dragon is singling out the Scots when support for the death penalty in Scotland is pretty much the same as in the rest of the UK.
-
I think the point he's making is more that the Scots have a... perhaps not entirely undeserved reputation as a people for whom violence is more commonplace in everyday life. Or, to put it another way, it's always an angry drunken scotsman in the pub who starts the fights, at least stereotypically.
-
I don't really get why Dragon is singling out the Scots when support for the death penalty in Scotland is pretty much the same as in the rest of the UK.
He's earned himself a new title for it though. :p
-
For me, it boils down to the question of what is really worthy of death penalty. I have absolutely no sympathy for murderers and rapists (and I can't fathom why anyone would, TBH), so my proposal is to start with those. Some would say it's too harsh, though.
Murderers I can understand but rapists? That is too harsh. Just because there is sex involved doesnt mean we should go all moral panic on the offender. Nonsexual torture or serious bodily harm can be even worse than grape, so why not kill those too. And thats how the slippery slope starts.. putting and end to such slippery slope before it can even begin is another good reason to abstain from death penalty.
-
Sharon tells me the Scottish are no more violent than anyone else.
It's also hard to type in a headlock :nervous:
;)
-
It's also hard to type in a headlock :nervous:
Especially when the one putting you in a headlock is so short. :)
I would be interested in why Dragon singled the Scots out for favouring the death penalty if he would care to elaborate though. I tried a quick Google search but came up empty. He must have had a reason.
-
Dragon has a faintly uncomfortable obsession with Scotland, it seems.
-
Post removed following PM discussion
-
Post Withdrawn
Seriously? What the hell? Seriously? :wtf:
PhantomHoover was lucky not to get pinged, but BritishShivans, you've got one chance to give me a good reason not to ban you for a week for that..
Post was withdrawn after a PM discussion.
-
I feel that this is related (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/lending-friend-your-car-can-get-you-life-sentence?paging=off).
-
To some extent that sounds like a rule which is not unreasonable being applied in a totally unreasonable way, contrary to what the author may say. (And despite what the article claims, England and Wales only abolished the rule under that particular name; it remains a principle of common law, and Scots law has always had its own version.)
-
(some people, and I'm using the term loosely, deserve a painful, slow death)
Humane non-barbaric execution is what civilized people do.
I would argue that any kind of execution is probably what civilized people don't do.
Thanks for not noticing my point. Since what i chose not to bypass is what actually happens. The fact that non-barbaric punishment does and will happen, will always happen. Will it always need death? Perhaps not in the future.
But, for the sake of interpretting your argument shall i also assume that spanking your kid is barbaric punishment?
-
I think you've completely missed Black Wolf's point that by claiming to be civilised while still executing, you're merely adding window dressing to a fairly barbaric act.
Forget your earlier question, a closer analogy is whether civilised people beat their children with a cane or cat'o'nine tails. After all, the cane was considered civilised enough that we were still seeing it used in schools only a few decades ago. But most countries in the western world realised that perhaps this wasn't the way we should be treating children at all, let alone when many canings were given out to children who hadn't actually done anything, and were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
I know what you mean. Just hoping that current executions don't turn breaking wheel on us all.