Which is why I fully support applying a more rigorous standard of proof in capital cases and not carrying out the sentence until the defendant’s appeals have been fully exhausted.
But once that’s all said and done, and there’s no doubt left in anyone’s minds that he’s the one what done the deed, then let him hang.
Who actually cares if the state is a morally superior authority, as long as it is always acting in its peoples best interests?
I don’t want the state to be at peace with its inner soul, I want it protecting us from mass murderers and making the clocks run on time.
There’s an argument against the death penalty that runs against precisely that notion. Namely : if the end result of getting captured by the State is death there’s no point to allowing oneself to get captured. There’s even a sort of paradoxical appeal to “choosing” the way you’re going to die with your boots on rather than letting the State dictate the when and where and how.
Therefore the mass murderers of the world get into dangerous stand-offs with the police, set up suicide bombs to take as many people with you as possible and/or kill even more people on the basis of “in for a penny, in for a pound”.
Life in prison might not be a rosy prospect, but it’s not death i.e. the one thing everybody is biologically programmed to try and avoid at all costs. Abolishing the death penalty is not about mercy, it’s *also *about making people safer even if that’s not necessarily intuitive. Besides, do you feel threatened by Charlie Manson right now, even though he never fried ?
The fact that he didn’t have to face the death penalty certainly didn’t dissuade Anders Breivik from killing as many people as he could. For that matter, the fact that under Norwegian law he couldn’t be sentenced to more than 21 years in prison could have, by your same logic, been an incentive to do as much damage as possible since there’s not anything worse they could do to him.
It’s not a matter of how threatened I feel by him. It’s a matter of whether he still deserves to be alive and drawing breath.
He does not.
There is very little a country’s criminal policies can do to deter a deranged individual, death penalty or no
Yes, but as long as I don’t feel threatened by him, why should I care whether or not he deserves to live? None of my business, and certainly none of the state’s business.
Thank you for making my point for me : Breivik surrendered peacefully as soon as the police showed up. So no, he didn’t kill as many people as he could have.
To quote old man Clint, “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it”.
Then we may as well abolish all criminal punishment whatsoever, since there’s nothing we can do to stop bad people from doing bad things.
Of course it is. That’s what makes the state the state - the fact that it has the authority to decide who lives and dies.
At which point he was out of ammo anyway, and confident that in 21 years he’d be free to kill some more.
Nope. By keeping Charles Manson and Breivik in prison we are stopping them from doing (further) bad things. But there is no threat of punishment in the world that will deter crazy people like them.
If Manson and Breivik were “crazy”, they’d be ineligible for the death penalty anyway.
In any event, the point isn’t to deter. It’s to punish.
I completely disagree. What’s the point of punishment if it doesn’t serve to (a) deter, or (b) rehabilitate? Capital punishment may achieve (a), but never (b). Regular imprisonment may achieve (a) (perhaps to a lesser extent than capital punishment), and leaves the door open for (b).
I would say it’s to incapacitate.
Some people cannot be deterred or rehabilitated. The only means left to the state in those cases is to punish them and provide visceral satisfaction to the people and the society that they’ve wronged. And what better way is there to do that than to allow them to spend their last moments kicking at the air and gasping for the breath that never comes, while the families of their victims, and the entire nation, watches them suffer for their crime?
Um, no he wasn’t ? Where did you hear that ?
Anyone? How do you propose to determine that, a national vote?
I propose to do it by trial in a court of law before a jury of one’s peers. It’s worked pretty well for the last couple centuries.
The death penalty isn’t capitol punishment; it’s capital punishment. Oh, and I’m 100% against capital punishment in all cases, if anyone happened to be wondering.
A state like that would make me viscerally sick.
If you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch.
But the criminal does have to die just to provide people with visceral satisfaction?
Sorry, but a state’s role is not to respond to anyone’s visceral demands; in fact I would argue that it’s the complete opposite. What if the victims of the original crime want the culprit to be boiled alive? Or crucified? Would the state have to provide them with that satisfaction too? After all, the criminal has already forfeited his/her right to live (according to you), and his/her victims want to see him/her suffer, so why the hell not?