Thoughts?
The Death Penalty
Posts
Total:
25
-->
@Owen_T
No. If person criminal is already overpowered and cant do more harm to anyone, he should be able to live in a room and play games and watch TV and listen to music he wants until prison penalty is served. Prison penalty shouldnt be over 20 years.
Also, prisoners need to have as much freedom as possible within the prison area. So I wouldnt ban smartphones, computers, internet...
-->
@Owen_T
Yes. If done right, the death penalty can deter crime, save taxpayers money, ensure that a given profligate will never return to the streets (there have been cases where released killers in their 70s or 80s went on to kill again), and remind the public how morally serious the crime of taking a human life is, since a lot of pop culture seems to cheapen the act. But the right conditions need to be met.
On one hand, if you have a democracy so backslid that the state's throwing people in jail for exercising their inalienable free speech rights, you don't want them having the death penalty as another tool in their toolbelt to clamp down on dissent with. So the death penalty should be reserved for a country where rule of law is strong, and it should be strictly reserved for crimes that either cause a person to lose their life or cross a certain threshold of severity in terms of permanent bodily mutilation dealt to the victim. And if your country is locked in a bitter culture war where one side wants to misinterpret "severe bodily mutilation" to make a slew of lesser crimes death penalty-eligible using spurious arguments or analogies, then this could be narrowed to just homicides.
On the other hand, there are countries with legal systems unnecessarily jumbled and borderline unworkable in the name of rule of law. A death row inmate in the United States can tie up the courts for 10 years trying to appeal his sentence. As a result, the death penalty deters no one, it saves taxpayers no money, and it hardly does more to keep thugs off the streets than a long prison sentence.
The framers of the Constitution, of course, were fine with a man being strung up 24 hours after his conviction for murder, so the relevant clauses of the Constitution needn't be interpreted in such a restrictive way as most contemporary jurists do. So here's how the death penalty could be made workable:
(1). There is only one court of appeal for death penalty cases; if a state government would execute you, then it's a state appellate court; if the Federal government, then a Federal appellate court. The only question this court will consider is whether you were rightly or wrongly convicted of the crime in question, not the fairness of said penalty.
(2). This court works on a rigid timetable. You have, say, one month after your sentencing to submit an appeal to them, or else your execution will proceed as planned. After this, they have, say, 3 months to accept your case. After this, they have a total of 1 year to complete your case. If they fail to meet the deadline, it'll be treated by default as though your death sentence was upheld by said court. If upheld, then you will be executed either within 48 hours of said upholding or on the stipulated due date of your sentence, whichever comes later. As a result, prisoners whose sentences are not overturned will be executed no later than 16 months and 2 days after their initial sentencing.
(3). The appellate court is permitted to decline to hear your case, such as if you're obviously guilty of the crime in question. If it does (and not otherwise), then you are entitled to file in the aforementioned other appellate court. If it too declines to hear your case, then you have exhausted all avenues of appeal and your execution will proceed as planned. So then, an obviously guilty man in a state where the courts weren't packed with ideologue hacks could expect to die within 4 months or so.
-->
@Swagnarok
All that trouble just to kill people? Do you know how many niggers were innocent yet got death penalty? Even in the best of system, there is 1% to 5% rate of innocents being declared guilty. This is especially in cases of self defense where it is hard to prove self defense.
-->
@Best.Korea
Even in the best of system, there is 1% to 5% rate of innocents being declared guilty.
I don't believe this is a current statistic. Perhaps there are still guys on the books from like the '80s or the early '90s, back when forensic science wasn't what it is now and DNA testing wasn't widely employed if at all, and they get counted when researchers come up with these numbers.
But new convictions? Nah, I don't buy it. And even insofar as there's still a small handful, I don't buy the whole "Better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person is wrongly convicted" talking point. You cannot sacrifice a functioning society at the altar of an unattainable perfect ideal.
As for racial bias, I would argue the opposite is true today. In general, jurors and judges would be more likely to scrutinize themselves for any biases that might cloud their thinking in the case of a black defendant than a white one.
-->
@Swagnarok
I don't believe this is a current statistic.
I just told you about self defense being difficult to prove.
And even insofar as there's still a small handful, I don't buy the whole "Better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person is wrongly convicted" talking point. You cannot sacrifice a functioning society at the altar of an unattainable perfect ideal.
Well, if you are going to attack an argument no one ever even made, then I guess good job attacking an argument no one ever even made. Literally no one said "let murderers go free". Now, if the only thing you have is a strawman, I really dont see whats the point of responding to my comment.
My earliest recorded opinion on the subject back in 2017 DDO,
"If we had a more cost effective and humane way to store people I might be against it, but such doesn't seem to be around right now."
I don't 'think I was big on revenge or the 'justice of killing.
But I disliked the forcing of a population to fund and act in a cause they did not believe in.
As well as disliking the monetary expenses with life imprisonment.
I've sometimes thought life imprisonment might better be carried out by the local community or charitable organizations. Local community being the actual people who 'knew the individual. Or charity being individuals who believe in redemption and treating people well.
. . .
Later on DDO I had a debate on the death penalty where I was Pro, but I found Cons arguments highly persuasive.
One of them an argument and sources that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than the death penalty.
Though that argument and source may have been situational, I've not thought on it in a while.
They also had a point on how 'expensive the death penalty is currently in America, though arguably that could be changed.
I also read some posts by SecularMerlin, that leaned me towards the view of people doing as their nature and nurture ordained.
Over time I've come to dislike revenge as an action even more.
. . .
Escape From New York (1981) was a fun movie.
And for me highlights a bit the problem of exiling all the human crazies to one place under their own laws.
And yet people don't like isolation as a punishment either.
. . . Eh, maybe if we could physically isolate some individuals, but give them means such as internet to connect with other humans, and enough physical space in a location to roam and do their own thing.
. . .
There are individuals we are 99.99% sure committed their crimes,
So I suppose my mind goes to such individuals, before thinking about the individuals we are uncertain about whether they did it or not.
. . . Sure the possibly innocent are something to worry about, but such isn't a problem for the 99.99% guilt individuals.
-->
@Lemming
. . . Sure the possibly innocent are something to worry about, but such isn't a problem for the 99.99% guilt individuals.
There are some crimes that deserve the death penalty.
-->
@Lemming
I guess we need to learn from a country with lowest murder rate in the world.
"Capital punishment is a legal penalty for murder in Japan, and is applied in cases of multiple murder or aggravated single murder. Executions in Japan are carried out by hanging, and the country has seven execution chambers, all located in major cities."
-->
@Shila
There are some crimes that deserve the death penalty.
There is no honor in killing a person who surrenders, even if person did horrible things.
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, it's possible the interrogation methods their police use, get people of uncertain guilt convicted earlier in life.
Isolating them or causing in them a fear of punishment before their crimes get bigger.
But I don't know if most murderers tend to have a criminal past or not.
There is also the problem of prison possibly 'making criminals out of people. But perhaps Japan's prisons are also different.
There is also the possibility Japan misclassifies X many homicides as suicides.
Some people argue less guns in Japan.
Some people argue different culture in Japan.
I also think it is possible countries have highs and lows over time, even if their laws remain the same, the 'people can change.
Or perhaps other variables are moving.
I'm not sure one can draw the conclusion that Japan has a less murders, because of their death penalty.
-->
@Lemming
There is also the possibility Japan misclassifies X many homicides as suicides.
Well, every country has some homicides classified as suicides. There is no reason to believe Japan does it at some higher rate than other countries.
-->
@Lemming
I'm not sure one can draw the conclusion that Japan has a less murders, because of their death penalty.
Well, if goal is to reduce murders, naturally you would copy country with least murders. Otherwise, who would you even copy?
-->
@Lemming
I'm not sure one can draw the conclusion that Japan has a less murders, because of their death penalty.
Criminals don’t hang around for long in Japan.
-->
@Best.Korea
It is true I have not researched enough to have a strong opinion on Japan's rate of homicides classified as suicides
I don't think it is 'necessarily bad to copy actions of another country, in order to reproduce their results.
But what works for one country, won't 'necessarily work for another.
Whole wheat flour and plain white flour,
Cook differently.
Pots made of different metals and different forms,
Will take different amounts of heat and time to boil.
'Just copying one aspect of another country, may not produce the same result,
Unless 'further variables are changed.
Because of the differences in countries, copying just 'one aspect, can even have the 'opposite result of what one wanted.
-->
@Lemming
It is true I have not researched enough to have a strong opinion on Japan's rate of homicides classified as suicidesI don't think it is 'necessarily bad to copy actions of another country, in order to reproduce their results.But what works for one country, won't 'necessarily work for another.Pots made of different metals and different forms,Will take different amounts of heat and time to boil.Whole wheat flour and plain white flour,Cook differently.
Are you suggesting Japan cooks their criminals differently in different utensils?
-->
@Lemming
But what works for one country, won't 'necessarily work for another.
Copying is usually better than going in blind.
-->
@Best.Korea
But blindly copying isn't good either.
Observing other countries actions is useful, in seeing what worked and 'why it worked, and whether such can successfully be applied to one's own circumstance.
-->
@Lemming
But blindly copying isn't good either.
There are only two types of knowledge: copying and innovation.
Americans arent good at innovation about when it comes to reducing murder rates, which is why USA has very high murder rate compared to developed countries.
-->
@Owen_T
Ah, another thought occurs to me, a video I've long enjoyed.
Supreme Court: Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass'
The death penalty is a good ideal. Just having it hang over somebody's head has solved a lot of cases. Some people who would have pled innocent or not revealed where the bodies were, would run free if not for that bargaining chip
-->
@Lemming
Well I suppose the Onion is never wrong.
-->
@Owen_T
Comedy aside,
I think it 'does bring up a valid consideration, with the dissenting judge viewing life imprisonment as way more brutal.
Some people would prefer death to certain types of imprisonment.
Though I suppose people might claim they can kill themselves, not so easy I imagine.
Prisoners means are limited, and they are stopped by guards I think.
Other view killing or suicide as moral wrongs.
. . . Or might fear the system intentionally driving individuals to suicide through mistreatment.
I think the electric chair should be eliminated.
It should be replaced with electric bleachers.