Ok Tildestinos, how do you feel about capital punishment? I am a bit conflicted, but firmly land on the anti-death penalty side. I don’t like anyone, including the government having that power....
Ok Tildestinos, how do you feel about capital punishment?
I am a bit conflicted, but firmly land on the anti-death penalty side. I don’t like anyone, including the government having that power. Now I do believe that some crimes may deserve the death penalty, but there are way too many flaws in the application of such a ruling. To me even .0001% false positive on the death penalty is too much. Our justice system is just not accurate enough for such a penalty to be an option.
The reality is:
At least one in 25 people on death row in the United States would be exonerated if given enough time, researchers have found. The study, which used statistical methods to extrapolate from available data, is one of the first to try to quantify the rate of false convictions.
I'm totally against capital punishment. "It's wrong to kill people, and we are going to demonstrate how wrong it is to kill people by killing you." That's hypocrisy of the highest rank. Killing a...
I'm totally against capital punishment.
"It's wrong to kill people, and we are going to demonstrate how wrong it is to kill people by killing you." That's hypocrisy of the highest rank.
Killing a criminal is giving them the easy way out. They don't feel anything when they're dead. There might be fear and dread in the lead-up to their killing but, after they've been killed, there's no more punishment.
It is wrong to harm people who did not commit a crime. The criminal's loved ones will grieve the dead criminal. It's not right to inflict that pain and suffering on those people who didn't do anything wrong.
I think there has to be a bit more nuance to it though. For instance, take the following example. Assume there is an individual named John Smith. For all intents and purposes, the man is...
Exemplary
I think there has to be a bit more nuance to it though. For instance, take the following example.
Assume there is an individual named John Smith. For all intents and purposes, the man is brilliant, charismatic, and has historically been a productive member of society. He also believes that, fundamentally, humanity is a scourge, and that he would like nothing better than see it completely eradicated. He begins a cult, in which he convinces a non negligible amount of people of his beliefs. They cause mayhem and human travesty all around the globe - he commits unspeakable human rights violations.
He also has started working on a disease that would destroy all humans if introduced. He completes it, but fortunately the authorities manage to capture him before he can tell his disciples how to make it.
He's sitting in prison, but he has an ardent set of followers that will do anything to get that information from him. You can assume that they are resourceful enough that they will eventually be able to get in - sneak in, break him out, assume positions of power and just have a conversation with him, etc. If they do, it will guarantee the destruction of humanity.
This situation is, obviously, extreme, but it can provide counter points to the ones you made above.
It might be wrong to kill people, but there have to be situations in which it is more prudent to kill someone than to risk having them stay in society.
The criminal's feeling shouldn't come into play here. This is about the danger they present to the rest of society. It doesn't matter whether they've committed thousands of crimes or just one.
His followers will react as if a God is being killed, causing them immeasurable harm. Some of them are innocent - it's a cult, afterall, so there are kids and others that have not yet committed any crimes.
I don't necessarily mean this to be an argument for capital punishment - I just want to show that it's more nuanced. One case that contradicts a part of an argument necessarily shows that the conclusions of that argument can't be trusted.
That's a good example, and, if I'm being totally honest, I don't know how to answer it. Suffice to say, I'll concede the need for flexibility. I don't like unchangeable dogma anyway. However, as a...
That's a good example, and, if I'm being totally honest, I don't know how to answer it. Suffice to say, I'll concede the need for flexibility. I don't like unchangeable dogma anyway. However, as a starting position, I believe the death penalty is wrong. If it was ever to be applied, it would have be as an absolute last resort, where there are no other workable alternatives. (Have you considered imprisoning Mr Smith in a self-contained dome on the Moon?)
At that point is it even capital punishment? The purpose of the killing is to prevent a catastrophe, not to punish. It seems like there's 2 questions here that may produce very different answers....
At that point is it even capital punishment? The purpose of the killing is to prevent a catastrophe, not to punish. It seems like there's 2 questions here that may produce very different answers.
Is it wrong for the government to kill people, under all circumstances?
Is it wrong for the government to punish people by killing them?
Your hypothetical really only shows people's answers to the first question, which I would imagine would almost always be no.
If I think clearly and deeply enough, then, yes, I do feel that imprisonment is wrong, even when imposed by a government. However, it's much less of a wrong thing than killing someone....
If I think clearly and deeply enough, then, yes, I do feel that imprisonment is wrong, even when imposed by a government. However, it's much less of a wrong thing than killing someone. Imprisonment can include therapy and rehabilitation. Imprisonment can include education and self-improvement. Imprisonment can also allow for early release.
Death is final, and doesn't rehabilitate or improve the criminal.
Whenever death is the topic, whether it be suicide or the death penalty, this argument is brought up. I cannot understand how this is reasonable, using the feelings of those separate from the...
It is wrong to harm people who did not commit a crime. The criminal's loved ones will grieve the dead criminal. It's not right to inflict that pain and suffering on those people who didn't do anything wrong.
Whenever death is the topic, whether it be suicide or the death penalty, this argument is brought up. I cannot understand how this is reasonable, using the feelings of those separate from the individual as a basis for what should/should not be brought onto that individual. It seems like a slippery slope, and is ultimately irrelevant, so should not be a factor.
Is it just me? Why, in the matter of deciding punishment for a crime, should the feelings of family members dictate the sentence?
Because the supposed intention of punishment is to punish the person who did a wrong thing. However, even though the criminal's mother or son or sister did nothing wrong, that person will also...
Why, in the matter of deciding punishment for a crime, should the feelings of family members dictate the sentence?
Because the supposed intention of punishment is to punish the person who did a wrong thing. However, even though the criminal's mother or son or sister did nothing wrong, that person will also suffer if we kill the criminal. That would mean inflicting punishment on the wrong person. If you do something wrong, should your father/sister/mother/brother suffer for it?
I figure that's just a sign of an inefficient prison system. It can't cost more to kill someone than to imprison them for the rest of their life. That's not a moral argument, it's just a symptom...
I figure that's just a sign of an inefficient prison system. It can't cost more to kill someone than to imprison them for the rest of their life. That's not a moral argument, it's just a symptom of bad cost control.
And, even if true, is still negated by a more fundamental view point. Do we put a price on justice? If we determine that to be the accepted and fair punishment, would we really be willing to...
And, even if true, is still negated by a more fundamental view point. Do we put a price on justice? If we determine that to be the accepted and fair punishment, would we really be willing to acquiesce our morality because it's deemed too expensive?
I agree. There are certain rights we can't put a price on. Fair elections and due process rank among the top of that list. These are ideals that millions have sacrificed their lives in order to...
I agree. There are certain rights we can't put a price on. Fair elections and due process rank among the top of that list. These are ideals that millions have sacrificed their lives in order to preserve within the free world. They are priceless, and no financial expense can hold a candle to the blood, sweat, and tears it cost to establish and preserve these rights.
If due process is too expensive, then democracy itself is too expensive.
I agree with you but it stands true as of now, mostly due to the extra time and legal fees as well as housing the prisoner for the lengthy time on death row (this article explains it well) For me,...
I agree with you but it stands true as of now, mostly due to the extra time and legal fees as well as housing the prisoner for the lengthy time on death row (this article explains it well)
For me, it’s just another reason compounded on top of all the moral ones why execution isn’t a good option for punishment.
If it were cheaper I’d definitely still be against it, but having the cost issue existing helps give me something concrete to explain to other people instead of just saying “yeah it just doesn’t sit right with me.”
Because justice commits errors, I find illogical for it to put forth sentences that cannot be at least partially reversed during the condemned lifetime.
Because justice commits errors, I find illogical for it to put forth sentences that cannot be at least partially reversed during the condemned lifetime.
I'm for it overall but against its current implementation and doubt that a better system could ever be implemented. As it is, its prone to errors, accomplishes nothing, takes too long, is...
I'm for it overall but against its current implementation and doubt that a better system could ever be implemented. As it is, its prone to errors, accomplishes nothing, takes too long, is incredibly expensive, and is almost always pointless.
Is there a space on our society where we should put people to death? Yes. Its not about revenge or any of that other bullshit, though, its about a person being beyond reform and the state deciding for the good of the society that we should not allow that person to exist. Serial rapists and murderers, mass murderers (IE shooters), unrelenting pedophiles, and so on - people who will never be integrated back into society and, more importantly, pose a significant threat to anyone, especially when they still do even without a motive.
But our "justice" system doesnt work like that, and likely will never work like that so long as our current form of democracy exists. "Justice" isnt about reform so much as revenge to begin with, which pollutes the system to its core and corrupts the notion of the death penalty. Thats even evident in this thread, with the "death is too quick" mentality, like prison's purpose is an institute of suffering rather than a space to allow our society's misfits to repair themselves.
So overall yes, in our current state as a species no.
This is about where I land, too. I believe that some crimes are absolutely worth the death penalty. I believe that if we had captured Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech massacre), his crimes earned him...
This is about where I land, too.
I believe that some crimes are absolutely worth the death penalty. I believe that if we had captured Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech massacre), his crimes earned him the death penalty. I believe that Robert Bowers (Pittsburgh synagogue shooting) earned the death penalty. I believe that if Stephen Paddock (Las Vegas shooting) was found alive, he'd have earned it too.
While these cases are (to me) obvious examples, it quickly becomes a race on where to draw the line - on both how bad a crime must be to earn capital punishment, and how certain we are in the accuracy of the arrest. I don't trust government to be able to make these value/accuracy judgments. With that in mind, I typically land on not supporting capital punishment, even if I believe some certainly deserve it.
100% agree. What it comes down to is that such a punishment would only be appropriate in a democracy where the systems are accountable and transparent at every level to an extremely localized,...
100% agree. What it comes down to is that such a punishment would only be appropriate in a democracy where the systems are accountable and transparent at every level to an extremely localized, perfectly representative and exceptionally educated population, which... Lol. Keep dreaming, I guess.
If you have someone safely contained, it is unethical to kill them. Someone may have killed in cold blood to get in front of a judge, but capital punishment would be hypocritical. I find it wrong...
If you have someone safely contained, it is unethical to kill them. Someone may have killed in cold blood to get in front of a judge, but capital punishment would be hypocritical.
I find it wrong that if you're a special member of the government it's legal for you to purposefully kill someone.
Retributive punishment in general is wrong, the point of the criminal justice system should be to reform individuals so they can rejoin society or isolate those that cannot be helped.
Retributive punishment in general is wrong, the point of the criminal justice system should be to reform individuals so they can rejoin society or isolate those that cannot be helped.
I believe capital punishment should be reserved only for severe crimes against humanity. For the willing perpetrators of genocide, climate change, and the like. It serves absolutely no use in a...
I believe capital punishment should be reserved only for severe crimes against humanity. For the willing perpetrators of genocide, climate change, and the like.
It serves absolutely no use in a criminal justice system. It is the least effective deterrent conceivable, serves no role in rehabilitation, and is too great a responsibility for our flawed justice system.
The only thing capital punishment is useful for is quenching vengeful bloodlust. That said, people like Mussolini, Gaddafi, and the Nazis convicted by the Nuremburg Trials deserved nothing less.*
Edit: *Notably, in many cases like this, it isn't even the state which ultimately ends up delivering justice through death. These are crimes which are so utterly vast in scale that they manage to reduce the legitimacy of the state by such a degree that even lynch mobs hold greater legitimacy.
Pro-death here! I'm for a women's right to choose and for the death penalty. However, I'm only OK with the death penalty given that the preponderance of evidence meets a very high bar, one that is...
Pro-death here!
I'm for a women's right to choose and for the death penalty. However, I'm only OK with the death penalty given that the preponderance of evidence meets a very high bar, one that is higher than what we currently use.
I'd be all for legislation limiting it to only cases with DNA evidence and I'd like to see the appeal process shortened significantly, and let's stop using these expensive drugs to do the executions with - people kill themselves all the time with household items.
Great point! I'm curious what bar would be high enough - not for execution per se - but just for 100% certainty. Video evidence? Maybe combined with DNA evidence?
Great point! I'm curious what bar would be high enough - not for execution per se - but just for 100% certainty. Video evidence? Maybe combined with DNA evidence?
Considering issues with the judicial system (DNA is just a source of forensic data, the circumstances still need to be interpreted) and humans inescapable cognitive biases, I don’t think such a...
I'm only OK with the death penalty given that the preponderance of evidence meets a very high bar
Considering issues with the judicial system (DNA is just a source of forensic data, the circumstances still need to be interpreted) and humans inescapable cognitive biases, I don’t think such a high-bar is possible. Besides, there is no evidence that the death penalty is a good crime deterrent:
And, because we're talking about the extermination of a human life, I would have to be very sure of the benefits of the death penalty in order to agree with it. That's just not the case.
I was thinking purely from an economic standpoint. I don't care much about the deterrence or lack there of. Why should we pay to feed and house someone who will never benefit society? Who is not...
I was thinking purely from an economic standpoint. I don't care much about the deterrence or lack there of. Why should we pay to feed and house someone who will never benefit society? Who is not redeemable?
The arguments against how solid DNA results is a much more compelling argument to me.
In most countries, deterrence is the express purpose of imprisonment and capital punishment. Not because we're good, but because it's more effective than the alternatives. And regarding the...
In most countries, deterrence is the express purpose of imprisonment and capital punishment. Not because we're good, but because it's more effective than the alternatives.
And regarding the economic aspect, governments, companies and individuals invest a lot in education, healthcare and overall social structure and welfare. Each adult person you kill means a lot of resources down the drain. There's also the opportunity cost: that person could be actually generating returns to society. They could work inside the jail. Or be rehabilitated. It is possible. Look at Norway. You may think rehabilitating is too expensive, but don't forget that there is an economic cost to crime.
That sort of falls apart though when we talk about life imprisonment, right? What benefit are people providing behind bars? I'm sure specific individual contribute quite a bit... but overall I...
And regarding the economic aspect, governments, companies and individuals invest a lot in education, healthcare and overall social structure and welfare. Each adult person you kill means a lot of resources down the drain.
That sort of falls apart though when we talk about life imprisonment, right? What benefit are people providing behind bars? I'm sure specific individual contribute quite a bit... but overall I doubt we're getting what was put into it.
There's also the opportunity cost: that person could be actually generating returns to society. They could work inside the jail.
I am having trouble imagining a situation where someone in prison is generating more returns to society than they're costing society for their incarceration. Again, I'm sure someone could dig up some edge case... but overall? The reality doesn't match the claim.
Or be rehabilitated. It is possible. Look at Norway. You may think rehabilitating is too expensive, but don't forget that there is an economic cost to crime.
I'm a fan of Norway's system. Rehabilitation should be the goal and we get it VERY wrong in the US. But I believe that someone can go so far that they can't be redeemed and there are plenty who have no interest in redemption. So for the most heinous offenders, who we believe with 100% certainty are guilty, I'd say the a quick death is a benefit to society, not because of deterrence, but because it's the cheapest option with the best outcome. It's a cold calculus for sure.
There's a big difference between "very well might kill someone", "probably will kill someone", and "definitely will kill someone". Just because some people kill themselves by falling off ladders,...
... and let's stop using these expensive drugs to do the executions with - people kill themselves all the time with household items.
There's a big difference between "very well might kill someone", "probably will kill someone", and "definitely will kill someone". Just because some people kill themselves by falling off ladders, does not mean that the death penalty should be "drop them off a ladder, cause they might die". The same is true of overdosing and other forms of intentional or unintentional death.
Additionally, and probably more importantly, is the fact that price is not the deciding factor here. The high costs are nothing compared to the costs of keeping someone in jail and in the court system for decades. The drugs are scarce not because they're expensive, but because the businesses that produce them do not want them being used for this purpose. So, the deciding factor is the moral argument about the kind of death we want to condone as a society (if one at all). Death by firing squad is possible: cheap, effective, and quick, but it is morally reprehensible to a lot of the public.
Just wondering, what ratio of innocent people being killed to guilty people being killed are you OK with? Is 1 innocent death per 1000 guilty deaths acceptable? 1 per 100? Where would you draw the...
Just wondering, what ratio of innocent people being killed to guilty people being killed are you OK with? Is 1 innocent death per 1000 guilty deaths acceptable? 1 per 100? Where would you draw the line?
I'm not sure your question is entirely a fair one as think it's rhetorical. It'd be weird if I said "6 people" right? Like here's some arbitrary threshold of innocents that we're willing to...
I'm not sure your question is entirely a fair one as think it's rhetorical. It'd be weird if I said "6 people" right? Like here's some arbitrary threshold of innocents that we're willing to accept. I can probably track down a rough estimate of what that number actually is... the number of innocents executed.
The question sort of boils down to philosophical question of how much life are we willing to trade for a specific outcome. We can easily say something like "How many innocent people must die in car wrecks for us to stop driving automobiles?" 17K died in the first half of 2018... OR "How long are we going to let alcoholics beat their innocent partners to death before banning alcohol?" I don't know that number, but I'm sure it's not zero. We make these trades constantly in society. We traded +10K US dead as some sort of retribution for the ~2K that died in 9/11. What sense did that make?
I'm not someone who thinks that life is some precious resource - it's an ideal that's enviable to strive for but history says it's not terribly valuable and it's easy to put a price on (think hourly wages). That's my realpolitik way of looking at things.
That said, we should obviously strive for no innocent people being executed, so I'm for raising the bar to something like DNA + video evidence (someone else pointed out that DNA is not as conclusive as we'd like, so I'd add video on to that).
Let me ask you the reverse of your question: If we could ensure no innocent people would ever be executed, would you support it?
I think if the death penalty must be used, it should be as humanely as possible, but am strongly opposed to the death penalty. I'm a fan of the firing squad, Vice did an interesting piece on it,...
I think if the death penalty must be used, it should be as humanely as possible, but am strongly opposed to the death penalty. I'm a fan of the firing squad, Vice did an interesting piece on it, but the bit with Ronnie Lee Gardener's brother was poorly handled (he "had to see" pictures he requested of his brother after the execution, and proceeded to use them to shock people into having his opinion, in what I feel is an important footnote of the video). It mentions that only two firing squad executions have gone wrong, and there were instances of corruption tied to both.
More on-topic, Newsom could easily have spun this into something about the current process being potentially inhumane (the issue of the drugs used for lethal injection not working, or being hard to get), but decided to stick the personal, moral argument that he is the one who has to sign them, and was elected by people who knew he opposed it. I feel he could have taken an easier argument, but decided to go for the moral high ground, and applaud him for it.
It seems to have the highest success rate. This organization has a chart of methods and failures. Double-checking, I probably shouldn't be saying a method with a use count in the double digits is...
It seems to have the highest success rate. This organization has a chart of methods and failures. Double-checking, I probably shouldn't be saying a method with a use count in the double digits is "safer," because it probably hasn't had enough time to mess up. Considering two botched firings quads out of 34 (the same two, in the VICE video and in the link), it may actually be worse (that's 5%, which is higher than the overall average at 3%).
Hanging may be a better option, we have better tools for it, the science is all there, so we could probably avoid the problems it presents. Or just do away with the whole mess.
And maybe I could be for that too if it ended the tedious re-litigating through what would seem to be an endless appeal process. That surely costs a fortune for the government as well. Perhaps all...
Or just do away with the whole mess.
And maybe I could be for that too if it ended the tedious re-litigating through what would seem to be an endless appeal process. That surely costs a fortune for the government as well.
Perhaps all of that additional cost through the many appeals in each of these cases outweighs the cost of just incarcerating that person for the rest of their lives. I really hadn't considered that aspect. I wonder what a pure economic argument would ultimately boil down to?
Ok Tildestinos, how do you feel about capital punishment?
I am a bit conflicted, but firmly land on the anti-death penalty side. I don’t like anyone, including the government having that power. Now I do believe that some crimes may deserve the death penalty, but there are way too many flaws in the application of such a ruling. To me even .0001% false positive on the death penalty is too much. Our justice system is just not accurate enough for such a penalty to be an option.
The reality is:
https://www.nature.com/news/death-penalty-analysis-reveals-extent-of-wrongful-convictions-1.15114
So what do you all think?
Edit: to be more on topic, I should add that I support the governor’s decision, and his power to make it.
I'm totally against capital punishment.
"It's wrong to kill people, and we are going to demonstrate how wrong it is to kill people by killing you." That's hypocrisy of the highest rank.
Killing a criminal is giving them the easy way out. They don't feel anything when they're dead. There might be fear and dread in the lead-up to their killing but, after they've been killed, there's no more punishment.
It is wrong to harm people who did not commit a crime. The criminal's loved ones will grieve the dead criminal. It's not right to inflict that pain and suffering on those people who didn't do anything wrong.
I think there has to be a bit more nuance to it though. For instance, take the following example.
Assume there is an individual named John Smith. For all intents and purposes, the man is brilliant, charismatic, and has historically been a productive member of society. He also believes that, fundamentally, humanity is a scourge, and that he would like nothing better than see it completely eradicated. He begins a cult, in which he convinces a non negligible amount of people of his beliefs. They cause mayhem and human travesty all around the globe - he commits unspeakable human rights violations.
He also has started working on a disease that would destroy all humans if introduced. He completes it, but fortunately the authorities manage to capture him before he can tell his disciples how to make it.
He's sitting in prison, but he has an ardent set of followers that will do anything to get that information from him. You can assume that they are resourceful enough that they will eventually be able to get in - sneak in, break him out, assume positions of power and just have a conversation with him, etc. If they do, it will guarantee the destruction of humanity.
This situation is, obviously, extreme, but it can provide counter points to the ones you made above.
It might be wrong to kill people, but there have to be situations in which it is more prudent to kill someone than to risk having them stay in society.
The criminal's feeling shouldn't come into play here. This is about the danger they present to the rest of society. It doesn't matter whether they've committed thousands of crimes or just one.
His followers will react as if a God is being killed, causing them immeasurable harm. Some of them are innocent - it's a cult, afterall, so there are kids and others that have not yet committed any crimes.
I don't necessarily mean this to be an argument for capital punishment - I just want to show that it's more nuanced. One case that contradicts a part of an argument necessarily shows that the conclusions of that argument can't be trusted.
That's a good example, and, if I'm being totally honest, I don't know how to answer it. Suffice to say, I'll concede the need for flexibility. I don't like unchangeable dogma anyway. However, as a starting position, I believe the death penalty is wrong. If it was ever to be applied, it would have be as an absolute last resort, where there are no other workable alternatives. (Have you considered imprisoning Mr Smith in a self-contained dome on the Moon?)
At that point is it even capital punishment? The purpose of the killing is to prevent a catastrophe, not to punish. It seems like there's 2 questions here that may produce very different answers.
Is it wrong for the government to kill people, under all circumstances?
Is it wrong for the government to punish people by killing them?
Your hypothetical really only shows people's answers to the first question, which I would imagine would almost always be no.
Just curious: Do you also feel that imprisoning people against their will, which is a crime, is also wrong when done by the state?
If I think clearly and deeply enough, then, yes, I do feel that imprisonment is wrong, even when imposed by a government. However, it's much less of a wrong thing than killing someone. Imprisonment can include therapy and rehabilitation. Imprisonment can include education and self-improvement. Imprisonment can also allow for early release.
Death is final, and doesn't rehabilitate or improve the criminal.
Whenever death is the topic, whether it be suicide or the death penalty, this argument is brought up. I cannot understand how this is reasonable, using the feelings of those separate from the individual as a basis for what should/should not be brought onto that individual. It seems like a slippery slope, and is ultimately irrelevant, so should not be a factor.
Is it just me? Why, in the matter of deciding punishment for a crime, should the feelings of family members dictate the sentence?
Because the supposed intention of punishment is to punish the person who did a wrong thing. However, even though the criminal's mother or son or sister did nothing wrong, that person will also suffer if we kill the criminal. That would mean inflicting punishment on the wrong person. If you do something wrong, should your father/sister/mother/brother suffer for it?
Not to mention that capital punishment is more expensive than a life in prison in many cases.
I figure that's just a sign of an inefficient prison system. It can't cost more to kill someone than to imprison them for the rest of their life. That's not a moral argument, it's just a symptom of bad cost control.
And, even if true, is still negated by a more fundamental view point. Do we put a price on justice? If we determine that to be the accepted and fair punishment, would we really be willing to acquiesce our morality because it's deemed too expensive?
I agree. There are certain rights we can't put a price on. Fair elections and due process rank among the top of that list. These are ideals that millions have sacrificed their lives in order to preserve within the free world. They are priceless, and no financial expense can hold a candle to the blood, sweat, and tears it cost to establish and preserve these rights.
If due process is too expensive, then democracy itself is too expensive.
Exactly. Justice should be decided based on what is right and ethical, rather than what's convenient or affordable.
I agree with you but it stands true as of now, mostly due to the extra time and legal fees as well as housing the prisoner for the lengthy time on death row (this article explains it well)
For me, it’s just another reason compounded on top of all the moral ones why execution isn’t a good option for punishment.
If it were cheaper I’d definitely still be against it, but having the cost issue existing helps give me something concrete to explain to other people instead of just saying “yeah it just doesn’t sit right with me.”
Because justice commits errors, I find illogical for it to put forth sentences that cannot be at least partially reversed during the condemned lifetime.
I'm for it overall but against its current implementation and doubt that a better system could ever be implemented. As it is, its prone to errors, accomplishes nothing, takes too long, is incredibly expensive, and is almost always pointless.
Is there a space on our society where we should put people to death? Yes. Its not about revenge or any of that other bullshit, though, its about a person being beyond reform and the state deciding for the good of the society that we should not allow that person to exist. Serial rapists and murderers, mass murderers (IE shooters), unrelenting pedophiles, and so on - people who will never be integrated back into society and, more importantly, pose a significant threat to anyone, especially when they still do even without a motive.
But our "justice" system doesnt work like that, and likely will never work like that so long as our current form of democracy exists. "Justice" isnt about reform so much as revenge to begin with, which pollutes the system to its core and corrupts the notion of the death penalty. Thats even evident in this thread, with the "death is too quick" mentality, like prison's purpose is an institute of suffering rather than a space to allow our society's misfits to repair themselves.
So overall yes, in our current state as a species no.
This is about where I land, too.
I believe that some crimes are absolutely worth the death penalty. I believe that if we had captured Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech massacre), his crimes earned him the death penalty. I believe that Robert Bowers (Pittsburgh synagogue shooting) earned the death penalty. I believe that if Stephen Paddock (Las Vegas shooting) was found alive, he'd have earned it too.
While these cases are (to me) obvious examples, it quickly becomes a race on where to draw the line - on both how bad a crime must be to earn capital punishment, and how certain we are in the accuracy of the arrest. I don't trust government to be able to make these value/accuracy judgments. With that in mind, I typically land on not supporting capital punishment, even if I believe some certainly deserve it.
100% agree. What it comes down to is that such a punishment would only be appropriate in a democracy where the systems are accountable and transparent at every level to an extremely localized, perfectly representative and exceptionally educated population, which... Lol. Keep dreaming, I guess.
If you have someone safely contained, it is unethical to kill them. Someone may have killed in cold blood to get in front of a judge, but capital punishment would be hypocritical.
I find it wrong that if you're a special member of the government it's legal for you to purposefully kill someone.
The death penalty has been abolished in the UK for many years, but I oppose it completely in any circumstance.
Retributive punishment in general is wrong, the point of the criminal justice system should be to reform individuals so they can rejoin society or isolate those that cannot be helped.
I believe capital punishment should be reserved only for severe crimes against humanity. For the willing perpetrators of genocide, climate change, and the like.
It serves absolutely no use in a criminal justice system. It is the least effective deterrent conceivable, serves no role in rehabilitation, and is too great a responsibility for our flawed justice system.
The only thing capital punishment is useful for is quenching vengeful bloodlust. That said, people like Mussolini, Gaddafi, and the Nazis convicted by the Nuremburg Trials deserved nothing less.*
Edit: *Notably, in many cases like this, it isn't even the state which ultimately ends up delivering justice through death. These are crimes which are so utterly vast in scale that they manage to reduce the legitimacy of the state by such a degree that even lynch mobs hold greater legitimacy.
Pro-death here!
I'm for a women's right to choose and for the death penalty. However, I'm only OK with the death penalty given that the preponderance of evidence meets a very high bar, one that is higher than what we currently use.
I'd be all for legislation limiting it to only cases with DNA evidence and I'd like to see the appeal process shortened significantly, and let's stop using these expensive drugs to do the executions with - people kill themselves all the time with household items.
Great point! I'm curious what bar would be high enough - not for execution per se - but just for 100% certainty. Video evidence? Maybe combined with DNA evidence?
Considering issues with the judicial system (DNA is just a source of forensic data, the circumstances still need to be interpreted) and humans inescapable cognitive biases, I don’t think such a high-bar is possible. Besides, there is no evidence that the death penalty is a good crime deterrent:
And, because we're talking about the extermination of a human life, I would have to be very sure of the benefits of the death penalty in order to agree with it. That's just not the case.
I was thinking purely from an economic standpoint. I don't care much about the deterrence or lack there of. Why should we pay to feed and house someone who will never benefit society? Who is not redeemable?
The arguments against how solid DNA results is a much more compelling argument to me.
In most countries, deterrence is the express purpose of imprisonment and capital punishment. Not because we're good, but because it's more effective than the alternatives.
And regarding the economic aspect, governments, companies and individuals invest a lot in education, healthcare and overall social structure and welfare. Each adult person you kill means a lot of resources down the drain. There's also the opportunity cost: that person could be actually generating returns to society. They could work inside the jail. Or be rehabilitated. It is possible. Look at Norway. You may think rehabilitating is too expensive, but don't forget that there is an economic cost to crime.
That sort of falls apart though when we talk about life imprisonment, right? What benefit are people providing behind bars? I'm sure specific individual contribute quite a bit... but overall I doubt we're getting what was put into it.
I am having trouble imagining a situation where someone in prison is generating more returns to society than they're costing society for their incarceration. Again, I'm sure someone could dig up some edge case... but overall? The reality doesn't match the claim.
I'm a fan of Norway's system. Rehabilitation should be the goal and we get it VERY wrong in the US. But I believe that someone can go so far that they can't be redeemed and there are plenty who have no interest in redemption. So for the most heinous offenders, who we believe with 100% certainty are guilty, I'd say the a quick death is a benefit to society, not because of deterrence, but because it's the cheapest option with the best outcome. It's a cold calculus for sure.
There's a big difference between "very well might kill someone", "probably will kill someone", and "definitely will kill someone". Just because some people kill themselves by falling off ladders, does not mean that the death penalty should be "drop them off a ladder, cause they might die". The same is true of overdosing and other forms of intentional or unintentional death.
Additionally, and probably more importantly, is the fact that price is not the deciding factor here. The high costs are nothing compared to the costs of keeping someone in jail and in the court system for decades. The drugs are scarce not because they're expensive, but because the businesses that produce them do not want them being used for this purpose. So, the deciding factor is the moral argument about the kind of death we want to condone as a society (if one at all). Death by firing squad is possible: cheap, effective, and quick, but it is morally reprehensible to a lot of the public.
Rope is cheap my friend. But yes, I recognize that my view is not widely shared by the public.
Just wondering, what ratio of innocent people being killed to guilty people being killed are you OK with? Is 1 innocent death per 1000 guilty deaths acceptable? 1 per 100? Where would you draw the line?
I'm not sure your question is entirely a fair one as think it's rhetorical. It'd be weird if I said "6 people" right? Like here's some arbitrary threshold of innocents that we're willing to accept. I can probably track down a rough estimate of what that number actually is... the number of innocents executed.
The question sort of boils down to philosophical question of how much life are we willing to trade for a specific outcome. We can easily say something like "How many innocent people must die in car wrecks for us to stop driving automobiles?" 17K died in the first half of 2018... OR "How long are we going to let alcoholics beat their innocent partners to death before banning alcohol?" I don't know that number, but I'm sure it's not zero. We make these trades constantly in society. We traded +10K US dead as some sort of retribution for the ~2K that died in 9/11. What sense did that make?
I'm not someone who thinks that life is some precious resource - it's an ideal that's enviable to strive for but history says it's not terribly valuable and it's easy to put a price on (think hourly wages). That's my realpolitik way of looking at things.
That said, we should obviously strive for no innocent people being executed, so I'm for raising the bar to something like DNA + video evidence (someone else pointed out that DNA is not as conclusive as we'd like, so I'd add video on to that).
Let me ask you the reverse of your question: If we could ensure no innocent people would ever be executed, would you support it?
I think if the death penalty must be used, it should be as humanely as possible, but am strongly opposed to the death penalty. I'm a fan of the firing squad, Vice did an interesting piece on it, but the bit with Ronnie Lee Gardener's brother was poorly handled (he "had to see" pictures he requested of his brother after the execution, and proceeded to use them to shock people into having his opinion, in what I feel is an important footnote of the video). It mentions that only two firing squad executions have gone wrong, and there were instances of corruption tied to both.
More on-topic, Newsom could easily have spun this into something about the current process being potentially inhumane (the issue of the drugs used for lethal injection not working, or being hard to get), but decided to stick the personal, moral argument that he is the one who has to sign them, and was elected by people who knew he opposed it. I feel he could have taken an easier argument, but decided to go for the moral high ground, and applaud him for it.
Why firing squad and not rope? Just curious.
It seems to have the highest success rate. This organization has a chart of methods and failures. Double-checking, I probably shouldn't be saying a method with a use count in the double digits is "safer," because it probably hasn't had enough time to mess up. Considering two botched firings quads out of 34 (the same two, in the VICE video and in the link), it may actually be worse (that's 5%, which is higher than the overall average at 3%).
Hanging may be a better option, we have better tools for it, the science is all there, so we could probably avoid the problems it presents. Or just do away with the whole mess.
And maybe I could be for that too if it ended the tedious re-litigating through what would seem to be an endless appeal process. That surely costs a fortune for the government as well.
Perhaps all of that additional cost through the many appeals in each of these cases outweighs the cost of just incarcerating that person for the rest of their lives. I really hadn't considered that aspect. I wonder what a pure economic argument would ultimately boil down to?