Supposing we don’t trust the government to kill convicted criminals because they might be innocent. Fine.
So instead, I propose the government release the convicted criminal with the statement that they will not prosecute anyone for the murder of this person.
Saves a bundle on incarceration costs, and if the criminal makes it out of the country, they are in permanent exile and therefore someone else’s problem.
In other words, declare that person an outlaw, in the sense that word was used in, say, 1300.
Seems a bit barbaric, doesn’t it? Do we want to turn ourselves into a society where killing, even of very bad people, by any citizen is permitted?
Not to mention the fact that wrongful convictions would still happen, people would wrongly be declared outlaws, and then be killed. Wrongly.
No, I don’t think it would solve any problems.
I’m pro-death penalty, but I have to say that this seems extremely barbaric and defeats the purpose as I see it. You’re letting someone that has been convicted of a crime that worthy of death free. What’s his incentive to do ANYTHING legal at all? He can either choose to find the fastest way out of the country, or he can choose to go out in a blaze of glory. Hell, even if people were made aware of his release and waiting at the prison gate to kill him, chances are someone is going to get hurt or killed in the process. And even if he does make it out of the country, exile really isn’t that bad considering the, heretofore alternative of a life sentence.
I’m sorry, but I think this is a terrible idea.
Why not just throw them into the prison general population with the same conditions? If the person’s case is notorious enough to get the death penalty (or the OP’s hypothetical alternative), then one of the reputation-seeking prisoners will take care of it.
Its a nutty idea, of course (as well as a Running Man ripoff). I’m just suggesting a way to limit collateral damage.
Kinda like the way Cuba reduced its prison population and sent its prisoners to America during the Mariel boatlift?
Oh good, encouraging vigilantism. Brilliant solution, definitely upholds the values of law and order. And best of all it’s foolproof, because it eliminates the risk of wrongful convictions with unicorn power and leprechaun sweat. At least, I assume that’s how the risk of wrongful convictions is eliminated, because the OP doesn’t mention an alternative.
The plan would eliminate the government killing of wrongfully convicted people.
It would, it’s just that so would a lot of other alternatives that don’t suck.
Why limit it to the death penalty?
I propose that **The Controvert **doesn’t have to pay for this speeding ticket. However if anyone keys his car, slashes his tires, breaks his windows, etc., we’re not going to bother looking for the guys who did it.
So would abolishing the death penalty entirely, which is wrong, always and everywhere.
Yes. It would mean that other people would be killing those wrongfully convicted people. And I would tend to imagine that the average person, not having the resources of the government, would be more prone to mistakes. And beyond that, if they are indeed guilty, you’ve just released a person who has committed a heinous crime and who will likely be killed at some point soon; they have little reason not to commit yet more offences, either recreationally or as the means to avoid death.
If the problem is, simply, that we do not want the government to kill innocent people, this is an excellent solution. If the problem, however, is that we do not want innocent people killed, one example of the killer being the government, then it is the exact opposite.
This is one of the more blatant “playing with semantics” arguments I’ve ever seen. I’ve got a simpler plan: instead of a government official flicking the switch, how about they hire a private contractor. There, now the government isn’t killing wrongfully convicted people. It’s a private contractor! All the ethical problems are resolved. I can’t see why people made such a big deal about it, it was so easy to fix!
In a slightly less sarcastic response, here are the big high level problems with this plan:
[ol]
[li]It does nothing to resolve the core issue of being sentenced to death when you are innocent. Your survival is not tied to innocence, it is tied to your ability to escape the country. In fact, the stated problem and stated solution are so disconnected I have a hard time believing you posted this seriously.[/li][li]In addition to legitimizing vigilante justice, you have now inflicted onto the public someone who is desperate to escape, and has nothing to lose. Whether the person was originally innocent or guilty is not important, right now he is fighting for his life. Add a whole bunch of stupid vigilante superhero wannabes to the mix and I give you a few days before the first reports of people caught in the crossfire, death by mistaken identify, etc reports come in.[/li][li]Other countries are not going to simply accept the influx of hardened criminals illegally crossing their borders. At the very least they will be deported right back. In general, you can kiss your foreign relations goodbye, in addition to the hardening of borders that would result in a horrible drop in trade. It would be perfectly reasonable for these countries to consider this an important national security issue. Can you imagine the United States reaction if Mexico or Canada in effect sanctioned an official competition where murders and other potential hardened criminals made a run for the United States border?[/li][/ol]
As others have alluded to, this makes a great Steven King story. A legitimate judicial tool? Not so much.
It would also open up, say, mistaken identity murders. “I thought he was Sid Cabini, the Colorado Slasher!”
I think we should just start shipping all our criminals, regardless of crime, to Australia. It would end the death penalty, clear the prisons, there’s historical precedent for it, and they couldn’t possibly mind! Win-win-win-win!
Well-put.
If our goal is to give ourselves one comfortable level of remove from the execution process while still ensuring that the convicted end up dead, just implement a painless method of voluntary euthanasia in existing state prisons, then dole out life-without-parole sentences like Halloween candy.
This works even better, because not only are we not killing them, the stupid bastards are actually choosing to off themselves! Then we all can go to sleep at night feeling like the moral, humane sort of people we so clearly are.
But then they might choose to live just to spite us.
I propose mandatory cage matches to the death. We could televise them to defray costs, it wouldn’t be us killing them! It’s the perfect moral solution!
This is an awful idea, but a great movie premise.
I’m honestly baffled as to what the OP is solving with his simple solution.
See post #7. The OP appears to think it’s the government part of the equation that we have a problem with.
It’s cheaper than those alternatives.
We’re talking about the death penalty, not speeding tix. Besides, if something did happen to my car, I rather doubt the police would do much to catch the persons responsible.
Your opinion, to which you are entitled. IMHO, the current system is too wasteful.
I think the free market system would take care of the problem. If people are worried about the person being released, they would pony up the resources to take care of the problem. If they don’t pony up enough resources and mistakes are made, next time more resources will be allocated. People learn from mistakes.