Generic Execution Debate

[Lissa]

@Sage Rat

Though, even in murder trials, there are several levels at which you can be prosecuted and the death penalty is only brought out if it is believed that there is sufficient evidence. Would adding the option to convict on this level change anything if we still had to prosecute 99% of all cases for low-level offenses? <-Honest question

I think it would be unfairly excersized in this situation. If both options for sentencing were presented: death or life, juries would most often convict on the lesser charge if there was even a tiny smidgen of doubt in their minds, meaning that having the option would mostly be pointless.

It would be offered in “high profile” cases, in which moral outrage runs hot. These cases are always touchy because with media coverage the way it is, you are almost always picking jurors from a tainted pool. Since I believe that justice should never be meted out on the basis of emotion, you can understand why I would have a problem with this.

It also plays to something that I have always thought was one of the most unfair aspects of the death penalty: if you’re going to execute a man who did X, Y and Z, you should execute ALL people who did X, Y, and Z, not just those whose acts were so eggregious that they tugged at our heartstrings and made us “extra” outraged.

Served incorrectly, but served.
Part of believing in the death penalty is about in having faith in the good intentions and honesty of the rest of humanity. Pragmatism where it is ludicrous not to follow is of course not something to ignore–but where possible to get away with it, I generally prefer to opt for the idea that if you aren’t going to try and trust the inhabitants of the world–that if you aren’t in fact going to expect them to behave maturely, then there is no reason for any of us to behave maturely in the first place and we’re all screwed.

There’s an old Arab saying: Trust in Allah, but tie your camel. We can hope for the best when it comes to human nature, but it would be foolish to assume everyone is honest and mature. The fact that we even HAVE a death penalty says plenty about human nature, and it’s not very flattering.

I can’t see the death penalty as pragmatic in any sense. It’s wasteful, it’s pointless and it’s just plain wrong. Leaving aside my moral objection, what is pragmatic about a policy which has no benefits and is expensive and time-consuming?

@Sage Rat

T: Nifty. Is this a backup system, or do they maintain their own power supply for security reasons?

Both.

Hm. Of course, all of the non-death row have also gone up when adding in your modifiers–and I would have to imagine that a life sentencer without possibility of parole must still be held at a higher security level than others.

No. Lifers can be held at medium security, unless they’re violent towards other inmates, involved in gang activity, or in other ways pose a greater security threat. Most of them stay in medium security.

Personally I would like to do the math, just as that could be a fairly solid way for the pro-lifers to win–or at least to lead to further debates on “a happy prisoner is a good prisoner” vs. “bare minimum to keep them kicking.”

The “happy prisoner is a good prisoner” concept has a lot of merit. Inmates are given recreational items and kept busy through programs and jobs to keep them occupied. An inmate with nothing to do but think up mischief is a dangerous inmate.

However, you, the taxpayer, do not fund the recreational items and activities of the inmate population. The inmates themselves do. The funds are generated through vending machine sales and the like. You’re not, for example, paying for their television, you’re paying for soap, food, and toilet paper, as well as the facility itself. All of the “fun stuff” comes out of the inmate recreation fund.

@Bippy the Beardless

do believe that permanent incarceration is reasonable, and that inmates should be allowed to choose to opt out of incarceration and choose execution for themselves should they so wish.

Suicide is illegal. Allowing an inmate to chose to end his life because he’s tired of being imprisoned is suicide regardless of the method. It wouldn’t be allowed.

@Hustle

f the punishments were the same he would have nothing to lose from killing the victim, typically the only witness, and if possible dispose of the body to destroy physical evidence. He’d be less likely to be caught, less likely to be convicted, and even if he was he’d be no worse off.

Having the death penalty for both crimes and you could very well end up with more dead victims and less offenders brought to justice.

I don’t agree with this. Most rapists are not murderers. They’re very different crimes. If you asked many of them, they’d shrink in horror at the idea of killing someone. Even rapists have moral lines they’d rather not cross. Instead of killing the victim, they’d just be more careful to try to conceal their identities, not just shrug and say, “I might as well kill her. In for a penny, in for a pound.” Killing is not a simple matter of convenience simply because you’re a criminal, nor do most think that breaking one rule makes it okay to break others. (I’ve seen inmates who were unspeakably cruel to humans but would weep at the sight of a puppy being injured.)

[Sage_Rat]

@Lissa

I think it would be unfairly excersized in this situation. If both options for sentencing were presented: death or life, juries would most often convict on the lesser charge if there was even a tiny smidgen of doubt in their minds, meaning that having the option would mostly be pointless.

No no, I didn’t mean death or life, but death or the current-day sentencing. If there isn’t ironclad evidence, you go for the “Generically did lewd stuff” sentence and get him to plead it, but if there is ironclad evidence (video tape of penetration or such), then make that evidence count.

It would be offered in “high profile” cases, in which moral outrage runs hot. These cases are always touchy because with media coverage the way it is, you are almost always picking jurors from a tainted pool. Since I believe that justice should never be meted out on the basis of emotion, you can understand why I would have a problem with this.

Which is why it can be appealed. And (while he has a good lawyer) Michael Jackson’s case falls entirely in that spectrum–but even though most (?) people believe that he is guilty, most (?) of those people also agree that the prosecution just didn’t have the evidence for their case and would probably acquit just the same as the jury in the court.

It also plays to something that I have always thought was one of the most unfair aspects of the death penalty: if you’re going to execute a man who did X, Y and Z, you should execute ALL people who did X, Y, and Z, not just those whose acts were so eggregious that they tugged at our heartstrings and made us “extra” outraged.

Not entirely certain what you are referring to here? Manslaughter vs. Murder?

There’s an old Arab saying: Trust in Allah, but tie your camel. We can hope for the best when it comes to human nature, but it would be foolish to assume everyone is honest and mature. The fact that we even HAVE a death penalty says plenty about human nature, and it’s not very flattering.

Stealing a camel is a lot different from sentencing a man to death. Assuming that most people do not enjoy getting kicks out of killing people, there is no reason to assume that they will do anything other than try and go for the minimum sentence their conscience will allow of them. And if they do–well then as said, we’re already screwed.

-The fact that we HAVE a death penalty proving the evilness of mankind is only an opinion. 99% of everything humans and every other life form do can be relegated as pure good or pure evil based entirely on what moral system you choose to apply to it. People encouraging ratial cleansing are in their minds just doing the best they can to make the world a better place and while I don’t agree with them, until some greater being comes down and declares what is what, they might still be the ones in the right. still, blech
As OP, I would request that such throw-off statements be withheld.

I can’t see the death penalty as pragmatic in any sense. It’s wasteful, it’s pointless and it’s just plain wrong. Leaving aside my moral objection, what is pragmatic about a policy which has no benefits and is expensive and time-consuming?

If you’re going to remove a person from society and remove from him the one guarantee of life–the ability to freely choose and live your own life (…that is to say, the very crime that the person himself commited)–I see no point in spending the resources to keep him in some meaningless limbo. Assuming, of course, that it doesn’t require greater resources to remove him–but, logically, it shouldn’t be as stated previously.
Forcing a living death just so I can pretend like I’m performing no worse crime also strikes me as unhealthy–in just the same way as I dislike any time mankind lies to itself about bad things in the world just so we can feel better in our complacency.

No. Lifers can be held at medium security, unless they’re violent towards other inmates, involved in gang activity, or in other ways pose a greater security threat. Most of them stay in medium security.

Pedophiles often get themselves moved to solitary (as I understand it), so as to protect themselves from other inmates. I would imagine rapists and mass-murderers do not (but I’m not sure on the ratio of people between those crimes.) Is solitary–or whatever the “other” area is called–more or less expensive than normal medium security?

However, you, the taxpayer, do not fund the recreational items and activities of the inmate population. The inmates themselves do.

That seems valid. And since the building and employees are a given either way, nothing can change on that side. So if we are to decrease spending on death-penalty prisoners it will be in legal fees.

[Sage_Rat]

@Bippy the Beardless

I feel from a religious and in particular Christian point of view, a state imposed Death Penalty is unacceptable. Religious teachings generally allow for anyone to be saved if they take the necessary actions, and as such denying a person the ability to save themself by killing them is a very great sin. Not only is the judicial system faulty such that some percentage of those found guilty will be innocent, but also I believe some higher percentage of those who are guilty would with time be able to achieve their own salvation.
I do believe that permanent incarceration is reasonable, and that inmates should be allowed to choose to opt out of incarceration and choose execution for themselves should they so wish. But state mandated execution is immoral.

Interesting response: Nice to see a Christian response that is more New testament than Old these days.

The death penalty system is (in Western society) generally based on the ideas of the old Testament–that no one person has any right to take another persons life. Then, for specifically that reason, no one specific person can condemn nor execute even the person who committed the crime–and instead it must be done by Society and her representatives–in the interest of society.

The Old took a more real-world “But tie your camel!” outlook in this, while as the New believed that at heart forgiveness and kindness was the only solution to an actually peaceable world. If everyone is kind and respectful of everyone else, that effect will snowball and over time you will end up with the world returned to Paradise and free of sin.* **

To me the New Testament always came off a bit Marxist: Works on paper and everything would have gone perfect–if it wasn’t for all those darn humans mucking it up!
I do agree with it that Makind is not inherently evil. But simply that in a world of finites–where there is only one food enough for one and splitting between the three of you will just be the death of all–there is no help for us butting up against each other and strife ensues. It is much more practicle to plan for non-beauteous things to happen and to have to happen and be done, and systems to handle that.

But, your statement is one of religious foundings–so there’s not much to debate there except scripture. And I would rather not get into a Non-Religiosity of the State debate, so. Would be a fun discussion though.

• Looking at it in a specifically “What Jesus said” light, rather than including Peter or the others.
  ** Also ignoring that according to Revelations, the Big Guy is scheduled to stop the show previous to that point.

[Sage_Rat]

@Hustle

I generally view certain crimes as worse than murder, mostly because I can think of any number of justifiable reasons for killing another person but when it comes to rape… not so much.

Then you have never been in a position where your entire being had been reduced to exist only for the gratification of some stronger person. Whether that happens at 10 or 50 doesn’t matter. That getting anally raped with a broom handle may be more traumatic for a 10 year old boy than a 60 year old woman is only a matter of the victim; the intent was the same. Indeed, the only reason the one was the one was because of the perpetrator’s personal kink. That the perpetrator lost-out on being able to apply as much suffering to his victim as possible should only be his loss so far as I would be concerned–the attitude is entirely unacceptable.

Having the death penalty for both crimes and you could very well end up with more dead victims and less offenders brought to justice.

See Lissa’s response. Criminals and particularly ones who commit sex crimes are very very idiosyncratic and their logic circuits really don’t run the same as a normal person would expect.

[Sage_Rat]

@Cheesesteak

You can acheive your desired outcome without taking that final, horrible step.

Why is this step so horrible?

Also, I might ask, are you a vegan?

[Sage_Rat]

@Sage Rat

Served incorrectly, but served.

Oh yes, I had also wanted to add to this response. A criminal framing someone else for his own crime, and that person getting executed, is murder. When the girl comes forward to relate the correct person, he is now guilty of two crimes.
That the criminal used the government instead of a gun doesn’t make him any less culpable. Nor would it make the government guilty of anything any more than if a FedEx person unknowingly delivered a bomb.

[Cheesesteak]

@Sage Rat

Why is this step so horrible?

You are seriously asking why killing a person is horrible? If it isn’t, then why all the fuss about punishing murderers?

[Sage_Rat]

@Cheesesteak

You are seriously asking why killing a person is horrible? If it isn’t, then why all the fuss about punishing murderers?

Why lawful execution is. Large percentages of the population think that it just naturally is and “must” be bad, while another large percent obviously thinks that it is immoral/wasteful or what-have-you not to do. If that wasn’t so, we wouldn’t be here talking about it.

So, unless you can figure out some reason why you shouldn’t have to defend your belief that is is “bad” while I still will be required to defend my position?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

I’m not in favour of the death penalty, because I believe we are all best served as humans with a universal right to life.

But I have another point to make which just occurred to me.

Innocent family members and friends of the condemned person are unduly punished by the death penalty. If you can imagine what Scott Peterson’s mother is facing right now you know what I mean. She certainly doesn’t deserve this.

[Sage_Rat]

@grienspace

Innocent family members and friends of the condemned person are unduly punished by the death penalty. If you can imagine what Scott Peterson’s mother is facing right now you know what I mean. She certainly doesn’t deserve this.

Well, yes, one would hope that criminals would be more considerate of their mothers before commiting inhumanities.

[Cheesesteak]

The circumstances behind a death are irrelevant, the end result is still a dead human being. A dead human being is something I’m inclined to avoid. Give me two otherwise equal options, I’ll take the one that doesn’t result in killing a guy. Give me two alternatives that both protect the populace and punish the offender, I’ll take the one that isn’t execution.

Actually, I find it a bit distasteful that I’m being asked to explain the idea that killing someone is bad.

[Sage_Rat]

Why are dead humans bad? Most that have ever lived are currently dead, and some I am pleased with their parting. So, to move that question a little bit further out of a vacuum, what about a human life is so important that even Hitler has to live if at all possible?

And you didn’t answer whether you are a vegan.

[Cheesesteak]

Not a vegan, nor a vegetarian. I’m also confused as to why my attitude towards animals should bear any relation to my attitude towards humans. I don’t eat humans, though, just in case you’re curious.

As to your first question. This is not about whether or not the evilest .00001% of the population should live or die. It’s about whether or not the death penalty should be an ingrained part of our justice system. Is Hitler an evil SOB who deserved death? Sure, why not? Is John Doe #1267 on death row deserving of death? I have no idea, and there’s enough slop in our justice system to make it a very possible “no”.

I’m thoroughly uninterested in having even a single innocent person put to death so that 100 guilty men can be executed instead of serving life in prison. It’s not even a trade off that sets them free, they are still punished and imprisoned, and I’m baffled as to why Life with No Parole is considered so lenient.

[Sage_Rat]

@Cheesesteak

Not a vegan, nor a vegetarian. I’m also confused as to why my attitude towards animals should bear any relation to my attitude towards humans.

Noting about animals, I could just as easily asked about euthanasia, pro-choice, suicide, etc. Your morals accept for the existence of grey, which makes it hard for me to debate you specifically until I understand exactly where you have drawn the line in the sand and why you have chosen to place it there.
(And humans taste like pork. …I am told.)

<insert various stuff here against the death penalty>

Mmmm, not really an answer to my question (nor really related.)

(Warning: The below is quite round-about, but hopefully provides more context for what I am asking.)

Say we capture Hitler (alive) and keep him tied up to a wall with a ball-gag in his mouth so he can’t bight his tongue off. There is a rotating trio of guards who are employed to watch over him and inject food into his stomache three times a day, as well as to wash away his feces and urine, etc. If he becomes ill, a doctor will see to his illness, and if he becomes truly ill, the utmost of medical knowledge and machinery will be applied to his body–tied against the wall–to keep him alive to the very extent that we can.
Is keeping a person alive worth so much that we must go to such measures? I imagine you will say no (or not)–but that’s really not a issue at this moment.* I’m just showing that there is a “value” to life–and some times that value is too much to be worth it.
So then, knowing that there is a “value” to life–we can assume that there is something solid there that is being valued. If you were religious, this might be a soul. Personally, I state it as “equal rights to choose one’s own actions.”
What is it for you? What is so magical about life to you that I must pay guards, doctors, medical-supply companies, farmers, and whoever else to keep a twice-proven mass murderer alive?

It’s not even a trade off that sets them free, they are still punished and imprisoned, and I’m baffled as to why Life with No Parole is considered so lenient.

Leniency is certainly an issue for some people who are pro-death penalty. Personally I don’t view death as a punishment–so this is not really a pointful statement towards me.

• Of course, if you want to comment on this specific example, I will certainly not mind.

[wonky]

@Sage Rat

What is it for you? What is so magical about life to you that I must pay guards, doctors, medical-supply companies, farmers, and whoever else to keep a twice-proven mass murderer alive?

The only thing “magical” about life is that it is irretrievable once lost. (My husband, having been resuscitated, might argue. But the point is still there.)

In the heat of whatever moment, I’m not going to argue that a guy who is trying to rape or kill you should be protected from you fighting back and killing him in return. The point of the death penalty, though, is that it’s not the heat of whatever moment. It’s planned. It’s thought out. It’s most certainly in the cold of the moment.

And it’s permanent. Sure, fine, whatever, there may be a teensy tinsy number of times when the guilt of the perpetrator is so damned obvious that even I could see it sans glasses (and trust me, that’s pretty freaking obvious), but that’s so rare as to be meaningless. Why build an argument on the unlikely cases? Why not build it on the likely ones, on the factual ones.

Fact is, with what we shall assume was the best of intentions, juries and jurists condemned innocent people to be executed. That is a fact.

If I think that executing innocent (of that crime, at least) people is completely unacceptable, then I cannot support the death penalty in any shape because it is a fact, again, that juries and jurists condemned innocent people to be executed.

In 1800, perhaps I could have been all for a hangin’. I might not have known better. But that ink is out of the bottle, and the stain is permanent. I cannot trust the juries and jurists who condemned innocent people to be executed.

In the hypothetical world in which cases were 100% proved with no chance of error? I doubt (without being certain) that I would object to the death penalty. My objection really isn’t about whacking some serial killer. I wouldn’t shed a tear for anyone in that fantasy world of 100% certainties who got the chair.

But that world is a fantasy. Hitler isn’t on trial either. Saddam Hussein may be someday and I’ll pretty much be fine with any penalty handed down. But that’s not the average case. That’s not the real world. I remember things that never happened. I forget things that happened yesterday. Reality is a fragile thing, and I don’t trust a courtroom not to shatter it.

[Sage_Rat]

@jsgoddess

The only thing “magical” about life is that it is irretrievable once lost.

A coke can that has been jettisoned into the sun is equally irretrievable.
I certainly don’t mind the statement you have posted, but you did not answer the question. Why should I care about guaranteeing that no superfluous lives are jettisoned into the sun?

And there is no time limit to answer. Certainly many people in the world believe life is important simply because they were raised to believe so, or told such by TV–but I am asking for reasons more finite than that. Many people throughout history have felt that killing was, if anything, a right of passage (war) or a moral duty (execution/defense of honor.) But the only reason they believed this was because it was the belief of their times. If we also simply kill or pardon based on the current fashion–I can’t see that we have advanced and further just because the current fashion is for less blood. And particularly if that is so–then I see no reason why we should trust that the pendulum won’t swing back.

[Sage_Rat]

@Sage Rat

I can’t see that we have advanced and further

advanced any further *

[wonky]

@Sage Rat

A coke can that has been jettisoned into the sun is equally irretrievable.
I certainly don’t mind the statement you have posted, but you did not answer the question. Why should I care about guaranteeing that no superfluous lives are jettisoned into the sun?

Because it might be your ass in the chair. Because you have developed empathy around the age of three or four that makes you understand that

1. other people exist and,
2. they have feelings, too.