[Flipside]

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?

[Lorric]

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.

[S-99]

(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.

[Nuke]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Nuke]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[karajorma]

Yep, that tends to be my view on it too.

[Black Wolf]

(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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Colonol Dekker]

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.

[castor]

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.

[Grizzly]

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?

[Phantom Hoover]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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/

[Dragon]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Dragon]

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.