It deters further murders by the convict, though.
That’s great in theory but in practice I think you’ll find a lot of cops and prosecutors coercing confessions and hanging flimsy charges on under-defended suspects just to keep their “score” high. Pretty much just like they do today.
It should be abolished as it has been in the rest of the industrial world. We require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict, and we still get it wrong sometimes. There have been prisoners released after decades of being wrongfully convicted. Police are not perfect, nor are prosecutors, lawyers, juries, and judges. It just makes sense to me that we shouldn’t take the chance on making a mistake that can’t be corrected.
As far as deterrence, I don’t believe it has any value. Life in prison and execution are both horrible fates, yet criminals defy them both all the time. The Newtown killer certainly wasn’t deterred by the death penalty as he imposed it on himself. Some may even commit crimes in order to be executed or killed in a police shootout. I’d be willing to bet that in the crime of murder, the thought of execution never enters the killer’s mind.
Unfortunately, I believe that your vision of the future is probably the closest to reality
Ian Brady has been trying to die for most of his sentence. Forcibly keeping him alive (by feeding tube) is actually a greater punishment than the death sentence. That works for me.
Ian Huntley is another one who has tried to commit suicide, and doesn’t seem to be having too good a time in prison.
Put a parachute on 'em and shove them out of a plane over the middle of the desert.
That way:
Conservatives don’t have to worry about the excessive cost of life imprisonment,
Religious people can feel like it’s all been left up to God,
And if the Liberals don’t like it, they can get in their Range Rovers and go pick them up
P.S. I hope to be running (unopposed) for the office of Emperor of the United States, in 2020 – please keep an eye out
I had a newspaper article that discussed the debate in the West Virginia legislature in 1965 when it abolished the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison w/o parole. It was surprising how many legislators objected to this punishment as being too cruel and favoring retention of the death penalty as a more “humane” alternative.
Of course, looking at this list of executions in WV from 1899 to 1959, an inmate was typically executed about 3 months after sentencing. http://www.wvculture.org/history/crime/executions.html
There was little if no federal review at the time, and an inmate had one non-mandatory appeal to the state supreme court.
Which, IMHO, is how it should be. Waiting 15 to 20 years as it commonly happens with the modern death penalty makes it not a deterrent at all. Seeing an article about how some guy was executed in Florida for a crime that he committed when I was in grade school makes me wonder about the purpose of it all.
I understand that a longer wait time may prove someone innocent of the crime, but the wait time destroys any effectiveness of the penalty. Either 3 months and done, or no death penalty at all. How we do it today is absurd.
So I’ve heard.
My objection is how it’s unjustly imposed, not with executing people in the abstract. However, we’ve clearly demonstrated that we are simply incapable of imposing the death penalty in a remotely just fashion, so it doesn’t matter. That hypothetical is never going to happen.
It’s never been a deterrent. And I fail to see why you think executing innocent people will improve society. Somehow I don’t think that seeing the poor and dark skinned executed by the truckload will make society any more stable. Because that’s who the death penalty is targeted at; not the guilty, but at people unpopular with the powerful.
That’s a separate debate. If we can agree to be in favor of “fair” capital punishment, we can then propose solutions to any prejudice in the system.
But we would first have to see if poor or dark skinned people are sentenced to death more because they commit heinous murders as a larger percentage than their population numbers would suggest. If it is true that socio-economic factors cause higher crime rates, then we shouldn’t be surprised if those at the bottom commit more capital crimes and are sentenced to death at higher rates. Do you propose some affirmative action for capital sentencing?
I can’t imagine sitting on a jury and saying, “That person is poor and black: Death” and later “That person is white: life imprisonment.”
No; we as a society have demonstrated that we are simply incapable of that. It’s not going to happen.
The bias of the American legal system against the poor and dark skinned is well known and well documented.
I propose we don’t have it, because we’ve demonstrated ourselves to be incapable of imposing it in a remotely just fashion.
You likely won’t have to; the prosecutor won’t even try for the death penalty if the target is rich, and is far less likely if they are white. For that matter it’s entirely possible that the dark guy was arrested in the first case because the cops preferred arresting a random black guy as a suspect over the guilty white guy.
I could get behind the abolishing of the death penalty, under some conditions: Prison needs to be work, sun up to sun down work, the food needs to be there only to provide sustenance, no flavor, As much water as you can drink will be provided of course. You receive no pay for your work.
After the amazing rehabilitation rate that my jails would have, we could then think about reducing the times we incarcerate people.
That is assuming a 100% accuracy rate in the trial process, which has been disproven by the number of wrongfully accused who have been released.
In case this wasn’t a whoosh, you just described the Arkansas state prison system. The rehabilitation rate is comically poor (and incarceration rate comically high) and attempts at “reform” have been ongoing for decades with poor results.
I’m a pessimist and I admit that but holy cow… don’t worry you’re philosophy is closer to reality than mine is. Luckily they don’t execute too many people so ALL criminals pretty much get to keep their lives.
This is one of those things that I go back and forth on. I don’t like the death penalty because its well, final, and we all know there have been people who have been wrongly convicted. At the same time, there are some crimes where I can’t help but think that the criminal deserves death.
Statics show though that as a whole the death penalty isn’t much of a deterrent. IMHO being put into prison for the rest of your life knowing that you will NEVER get out would be a much worse punishment. I can’t imagine that. Knowing that your life is over yet you still have to live it for years and years. I’d think death would be welcome in those types of situations.
I guess though I would say that the death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst and then ONLY if there is no doubt whatsoever about the persons guilt.
As an old acquaintance described his many stints behind bars: “The first two weeks always suck. After that, it becomes normal.”
People are amazing at adapting to their circumstances. Three hots and a cot with little access to booze or drugs is probably a huge improvement for most inmates.
I think the criminal should have a choice. Prison or execution. If they choose prison, they can always change their minds. That’s how I think it should work.
That being said, I think the government needs to do a lot of work on their methods. Yes, lethal injection seems like the most humane way as the person dies in their sleep so they don’t feel any pain. That’s how it should work, but the problem is that it doesn’t.
You understand, I hope, that anybody who willingly choose execution would require an extensive psychological evaluation, yes? You would almost have to question the sanity of anybody who chooses death over imprisonment. Prison offers at least the chance at eventual freedom, in the form of parole, clemency, or a successful appeal and you can at least receive visits from loved ones in the interim.
Also, we (as a society, I mean) are largely against the idea of convicted felons choosing their own punishment. They’re not allowed to do that, and this includes placing prisoners (even death row inmates) on suicide watch if that’s considered a real possibility.
If you don’t mind my asking, is this part of a school assignment? I noticed you posed the question but never offered your own thoughts or engaged in the thread at all until after several posters offered their own take.
I am an atheist, or, near-as-makes-no-difference anyway. So, I think death is too good for a murderer, and horribly, indescribably unjust for an innocent person. Life in prison is preferable both for reasons of punishment and because mistakes in the justice system do happen. So, I strongly oppose the death penalty.
I have heard someone try to defend the death penalty with an argument that amounted to “Well, even if they were executed accidentally, they’ll go straight to heaven anyway”, which caused me to pretty much boil over in fury.
We actually did this last year. It’s not at all part of a school assignment.
It’s not necessarily insane to choose death over imprisonment because if you think about it, at least with death you escape reality. As Socrates said, “Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.” With prison, you’re just waiting around for 50+ years not doing shit and getting depressed. So it wouldn’t be that questionable of a choice if someone did choose death over imprisonment. Ever thought why so many prisoners commit suicide? Sure, many people would probably take imprisonment, but there are a a good amount of people out there that would take death instead.