Raping and murdering a little boy? Life imprisonment. But not the death penalty.
Well, I was talking about severely ignorant jurors, who imagine that the lack of a lie-detector test must imply guilt.
(A friend of mine was on a jury, and one juror voted to acquit, because “To a white policeman, all blacks look the same.” The policeman could not possibly have identified the suspect correctly in a line-up. Education is a big problem with the jury system.)
Hell, my only objection to the death penalty has always been that there’s no redress to grievance if we make a mistake and kill someone wrongfully convicted. A device like the OP suggests, then yeah, I’d be okay with the death penalty … as long as it can be shown no one can fix it to give a false reading.
The highest purpose of the justice system is rehabilition and return to society. When those are impossible, the next highest purpose is protecting the public. Neither of those requires the DP, because nobody escapes life without parole these days.
Any other purpose of the justice system is really just revenge, and that’s not a motivation that the state should encourage. Who is short-sighted enough to think we make ourselves better as individual PEOPLE by taking revenge as a habit? And if it’s a bad habit for an individual, how does it improve the legitimacy, stability, etc. of the state or the society for the STATE to take revenge?
Revenge is a powerful, deadly drug. It feels good, but it’s deadly.
Details? Link?
I am glad that Canada has no death penalty. It was ended after a 14 year old innocent was nearly hung many years ago. So I don’t have to give much thought to the DP since we don’t have it. I am very conflicted about it. On the one hand I cringe at the thought of the state killing an innocent person, then after all those little kids died or were maimed for life in the Mura Building bombing Mc Veigh didn’t deserve to live. I would certainly make a terrible jurist in any murder trial because I couldn’t in good conscious vote guilty if there was a chance of the DP. The DP is so final, it can’t be corrected later if there was a mistake.
I think there is a point some posters have touched on, but not really explored–another practical problem beyond the “innocent man” problem.
The death penalty legitimizes the killing of human beings who do not present a current threat. It signals to society that it’s okay to kill someone if they’ve done something bad. To what extent do people internalize that message? How much does it influence their actions? Is it actually offsetting the deterrent effect of the death penalty?
I think it poisons our culture.
This was broadcast on several of our Seattle news stations about a week ago. I didn’t Google it because our news here, while probably not perfect, usually doesn’t make up stories out of whole cloth.
BTW, while we’re on the subject, I’ve been wondering. Do any of the D.P. opponents on this board have any limits on their belief that the D.P. should never be applied? Can you even conceive of a crime so heinous that the criminal should be executed? Or do you think that maybe Adolf Hitler (if he had been taken alive) should have received life in prison instead of the rope?
Hey - I finally got a chance to invoke the Nazis as a debating point!
I can’t think of a crime heinous enough. I can imagine a scenario where it’s impossible to imprison someone.
There’s no evidence the death panalty has a deterrent value.
Bin Laden probably wasn’t much of a threat at the precise moment the SEALs gunned him down.
The deathly penalty is and always has been wrong, always and everywhere. The hypothetical does nothing to alter this basic fact.
Just imagine if the putative Pontius Pilate had not had death by crucifixion (or any other method) available to him.
If imprisoning people against their will is morally wrong…
And that isn’t a moral decision? “Just lock up and forget”? Good god.
Indeed. Imprisoning a human being is a seriously brutal thing to do. Imprisoning someone for life, without hope of release, is among the handful of most brutal things it is possible to do to a person.
Well, then, technically, billions of people wouldn’t have the option of getting salvation by sacrificial atonement.
So, a question:
Let’s say society continues Overton-Windowing some more over the upcoming decades. What’s to say that life imprisonment, decades from now, won’t be viewed in the same light as the death penalty today?
That could very easily happen. One hopes this means that the entire society is wiser, saner, kinder, and that the murder rate has dropped so far that murderers can get individual in-depth psychological counseling.
The most violent offenders would still need to be isolated, to some degree, from the people who otherwise would be their victims. But it wouldn’t have to be a prison as we know them today. Somewhere nice like “The Village.”
(“A sufficiently gilded cage is indistinguishable from freedom.”)
Yeah, just imagine…
I’ve never bought that argument. It’s akin to saying people should not be imprisoned because kidnapping is wrong. That’s essentially what’s happening to the cons, they’re being kidnapped and held against their will.
yes, but that can be undone. death can’t.
Which is why I said I oppose the death penalty, because there’s no redress for grievance by the wrongfully convicted. A device like the OP details? Then I’m fine with it.