What do you think of the alternatives I proposed?
I think there are legal problems with the government implementing your suggestions. Some fame-whore lawyer would eventually try to get a lawsuit heard in front of the Supreme Court and your operation would get shut down on constitutional grounds. If free enterprise and private citizens did that, it could work, but only if the government agreed not to prosecute if anything bad were to happen to the convicted persons.
You think there aren’t potential constitutional problems to legalizing vigilanteism?
Where in the constitution does it forbid that?
Due Process clause, cruel and unusual punishment prohibition, etc…
Cruel and unusual punishment prevents the government from doing certain things to convicts. That’s why the current system is so expensive. It doesn’t prevent the government from *not *prosecuting someone.
That’s not what you’re proposing - you’re proposing to lop off the entire protection the legal system promises its citizens. That’s not doing nothing, and it’s quite unusual, and quite arguably pretty cruel.
Yeah, pretty sure it would. Removing all government protection from an individual and allowing them to legally be subject to a beating death via crowbar is probably going to qualify.
Christopher Titus had a bit about this. I’m paraphrasing strongly and thus killing much of the humor, but it goes something like: England was able to catch their terrorists by putting their pictures on TV, so the whole nation was out looking for these guys. We couldn’t do that here in the US, 'cause…well, we got guns. You put, say, four Middle Eastern looking guys on national TV, you’re gonna end up with 4000 dead people.
Same principle here. Release a prisoner, put his picture up, and say he’s free game? Someone might get him, sure, but I guarantee you there’ll be a sharp spike in homicides across the country every time it happens. Folks trigger-happy enough to kill someone aren’t gonna wait long enough to ask the guy for his ID. Someone unlucky enough to look like the prisoner is gonna be killed.
So not only would this not solve the problem of wrongful executions, but it would actually increase the number of innocents killed, even setting aside that the convict has nothing to lose.
Precisely. What if I were convicted of a crime and somebody mistakenly shot Brad Pitt?
Or deliberately shot Brad Pitt and then claimed it was an honest mistake?
(By the way: you wish.)
I would never wish that somebody would shoot Brad Pitt.
I meant you wish you looked enough like Brad Pitt that he could be mistaken for you and killed. (I sort of presumed you were making a joke to that effect, and responded accordingly.)
And he continued the joke. You done got whooshed.
It’s almost like the sort of thing someone would say just to provoke a reaction. I can’t actually believe the OP is at all serious about this.
I think you are forgetting that there is a strong disincentive to kill the wrong person. So if people are going to take action, they will make attempts to get it right. If everybody knew when and where the release is to take place, there’s not going to be any extra killings. Such perpetrators would face consequences.
I think you’re overlooking a rather important facet of this; fear. Both on the part of the released person and those on the outside. Having a person who’s committed a serious crime released nearby is not a situation where people think clearly or carefully. Likewise, for a person essentially acting under a death sentence, the things they do can’t be assumed to be rational, even if they are innocent. People simply aren’t going to think about the correct usage of resources when such a person is about.
Too, there’s the problem that mistakes on this would go both ways. A person who shoots another they’ve mistaken for the criminal may learn a lesson to not be so trigger-happy (and, via the media, many may learn it). On the other hand, a person who acts too riskily may find themselves attacked by the criminal, and learn the lesson to be less trusting. Learning from your mistakes doesn’t work well when there’s the potential to be mistaken either way. Plus, there’s the problem that everyone has their own concept of what acceptable mistake levels are. With the government, at least there’s only one system of mistakes, and there’s that old chestnut, checks and balances. In your suggested system, it’s not simply a matter of the public as a group, but of people as individuals, and each will have their own ideas on the situation, with those at the more extreme ends of the spectrum free to go their own way and not be moderated by those less radical than they.
There’s also the difficulty of identifying problems. Again, at least with the government, we can know the process. If necessary, we can know the person or people who killed; we can know where the death took place, and so on. With your system, we can’t verify a death, we can’t verify an accidental death, we can’t know the killer or how the killer and any organisation supporting them work. We lack information as to why a mistake might be made; if the wrong person is killed, we aren’t necessarily going to know the procedures of the group that made the killing. In essence, we can’t judge the efficiency of one group over another beyond the very basics. A system of vigilantism isn’t transparent; a free market system without informed decision-making is just guesswork.
And then there’s the trouble of that not everyone will be likely to be on the same side on this. It’s not simply a matter of one person against the community; they may have people on their side. So what happens when a group of armed vigilantes attempt to take on another group of armed vigilantes? What happens when one group who want the societal or business prestige of making the kill meet another group with the same goals? A tense situation with armed parties in disagreement doesn’t make for sound choices.
Finally, none of this applies to the criminal in question. They’re living under a death sentence; who or where it comes from doesn’t matter to them. To an extent, a higher chance they will be killed is going to lead to an even greater chance of them taking risks, or committing further crimes - after all, what’s the worst that could happen?
Perhaps, but I don’t believe that’s foolproof by any means, and America has lots and lots of fools. You’re still introducing unnecessary risk.
Also, you say people would know when and where the convict would be released. Someone eager to kill a man just to watch him die can show up and shoot the convict the instant he leaves the government’s protection. You may have eliminated the possibility of look-alike innocents getting hurt, but by raising it to a near-100% certainty that the convict will be immediately killed, you’ve done nothing but make the executioner a private citizen instead of a government agent. This goes back to missing the point; what concerns anti-DP people is the killing part, not the government part.
So what? Even assuming it’s true.
Especially considering the demographics involved. Just how many race riots will we get with a constant barrage of news footage of black men being hunted for sport by white people? How much money will THAT cost?
:rolleyes: So, the free market will magically prevent false convictions and the deaths of bystanders.
I was wooshed either way, I think.
Nonsense - people are stupid. And they drink beer. “Accidental” shootings will skyrocket, inevitably.
Look, there are three possible situations: either there will be an “informal” firing squad at the prison gate, or the criminal gets loose into the population, in which case either some private individual or individuals will be so angry at the criminal that they’ll pony up a noticeable reward, or they won’t.
In the first case, it’s functionally a government-sponsored volunteer firing squad, just with lots more beer and shooting accidents in the process, and more likely to involve things like killing by inches by shooting limbs, etc. Cruel and unusual - unconstitutional. So, you’d have to release him in secret from an unknown location. (!!!)
If the criminal gets past the gate and there’s no reward, no rational person will go after the guy. There is literally no way to quickly, safely, and reliably determine that the guy you’re looking at is the crook without putting yourself at risk of him killing you first. So, where does that leave you? With people who aren’t assessing the risk properly. And you are relying on them to exact justice methodically and safely for bystanders?
If there is a reward, you will attract professional bounty hunters, who can do the job decently and with a chance of not taking out five or ten innocents first/too. Maybe. But you will also attract even more gun-toting drunken idiots. It will be, quite literally, mass slaughter.
I’m not sure you could make this more destructive to the general public. Perhaps if you armed the perp up with a large number of guns and ammunition, and set him loose in a populated area? No, the damage would still be localized then…