The Death Penalty

[Ifreann]

Unless he's found to be insane, in which case I imagine he'll be sent to some class of psychiatric institution until he's sane. Or unless he's found to no longer be a danger to society at one of those court appearances.

Interesting fact; "insanity" is not actually a term that's accepted by the psychology/psychiatry community (see: DSM-IV). It's just a legal term defense attorneys make up to get their clients off the hook.

I actually was aware of that. NSG Law School, dontcha know. Though, I wouldn't say it's made up by defence attorneys.

[Risottia]

Same for people sentenced to 20 years I guess. Define "soon", lil' weasel...


Dunno about the nanny-state you live in, but here inmates work and must pay for the food if they or their families have money/properties.

20 years isn't a life sentence. And the nanny-state I live in is the US, and the prison system here is a piece of shit.

So, a life sentence with parole is "too soon". 20 years without parole would be "soon". Hm.

[Pancakes Wrath]

No, it is playing God with people's lives, and even though I'm an atheist, I don't think that people should treat each other that way.

Isn't the same true of, say, murder?

Yes, but MP wasn't arguing that murder was okay either, and in fact it's frowned upon by everyone except murderers.

[Pancakes Wrath]

Isn't killing someone for murder under the guise of 'justice' just a roundabout way of gaining vengeance?

Yes.

[Johz]

Isn't killing someone for murder under the guise of 'justice' just a roundabout way of gaining vengeance?

Yes.

And why is that bad? Hypothetically, why shouldn't we have a justice system founded on vengeance? After all, that is what the public want, isn't it? As a democracy, shouldn't that be what we give them?

[Ifreann]

Yes.

And why is that bad? Hypothetically, why shouldn't we have a justice system founded on vengeance? After all, that is what the public want, isn't it? As a democracy, shouldn't that be what we give them?

Popularity doesn't make an idea good, democracy or not.

[No Water No Moon]

Isn't the same true of, say, murder?

Yes, but MP wasn't arguing that murder was okay either, and in fact it's frowned upon by everyone except murderers.

Right. I'm just saying, if the problem is 'people shouldn't treat each other that way' or that it's 'playing God with people's lives' - that 'problem' already exists. A death penalty isn't inventing that problem.

You could think of a death penalty as being the equivalent of a firebreak, for murder. Just as fire can stop the spread of fire, so making someone dead stops them spreading making-people-dead.

*nods*

[Pancakes Wrath]

And why is that bad? Hypothetically, why shouldn't we have a justice system founded on vengeance? After all, that is what the public want, isn't it? As a democracy, shouldn't that be what we give them?

Popularity doesn't make an idea good, democracy or not.

^This.

And because if justice is supposed to right wrongs and prevent more of them, justice has to be pragmatic rather than vengeful.

[SuperNinja]

No human should ever deserve to be killed. Even if they are a killer, they should be put in jail, instead of in heaven. Anyone who thinks that killing is okay, is crazy. You are killing you're own citizens! Public humiliation might be another alternative instead of killing, but it might cause people too rebel and that is very bad. If you want a happy nation, don't give a death penalty or show something gruesome in front of everybody. Those things are only for the very desperate governments, in which crime is a big problem. The people who show public killing should be doing this . Take my opinion; the death penalty is not a good thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Republic of Super Ninja has spoken.

[Pancakes Wrath]

Yes, but MP wasn't arguing that murder was okay either, and in fact it's frowned upon by everyone except murderers.

Right. I'm just saying, if the problem is 'people shouldn't treat each other that way' or that it's 'playing God with people's lives' - that 'problem' already exists. A death penalty isn't inventing that problem.

You could think of a death penalty as being the equivalent of a firebreak, for murder. Just as fire can stop the spread of fire, so making someone dead stops them spreading making-people-dead.

*nods*

That's kind of assuming that all murderers are repeat offenders. Murderers have a low recidivism rate (1.2%, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics). If murderers are arrested again after their release, those murderers would have been originally arrested for killing someone while committing a felony, and re-arrested for committing that felony again. That's according to a study in New Jersey that found divided killers into four types. Serial killers were not included, probably because they're kind of a special case and are often sentenced to life in prison or death.

So with that in mind, the death penalty still doesn't do a whole lot to prevent more murders.

[Gravlen]

Unless he's found to be insane, in which case I imagine he'll be sent to some class of psychiatric institution until he's sane. Or unless he's found to no longer be a danger to society at one of those court appearances.

Interesting fact; "insanity" is not actually a term that's accepted by the psychology/psychiatry community (see: DSM-IV). It's just a legal term defense attorneys make up to get their clients off the hook.

Or, in this case, one that the prosecution is arguing in favour of, while the defense is strongly objecting to any such suggestion.

[The Richard Bastion Republic]

I think capital punishment is a necessary sin.

WIthout it, prisons will be become even more crowded, and tax payers are already spending enough money on people that can't follow laws. In fact, they should make it easier for one to get capital punishment. If I were being convicted of murder, I'd rather get lethal injection instead of being prison raped.

[Ifreann]

Yes, but MP wasn't arguing that murder was okay either, and in fact it's frowned upon by everyone except murderers.

Right. I'm just saying, if the problem is 'people shouldn't treat each other that way' or that it's 'playing God with people's lives' - that 'problem' already exists. A death penalty isn't inventing that problem.

You could think of a death penalty as being the equivalent of a firebreak, for murder. Just as fire can stop the spread of fire, so making someone dead stops them spreading making-people-dead.

*nods*

You could, but you'd have to stop very quickly if you'd want to keep supporting the death penalty, because that's a better analogy in support of allowing lethal force in self defence. A spreading fire is a danger right now, so if we have to burn some shit down in a controlled fashion to keep it from spreading, that's cool. A killer coming at you with a knife is a danger right now, so if you have to go all ITG and pull out your highly customised automatic rifle with laser sight and IR scope and under-barrel grenade launcher and blow a sumbitch away, that's cool.

A killer who has already been arrested and convicted is not a danger right now. We can extinguish that fire without burning anything else down, we can eliminate the threat they pose to society without killing them.

[Ifreann]

I think capital punishment is a necessary sin.

WIthout it, prisons will be become even more crowded, and tax payers are already spending enough money on people that can't follow laws. In fact, they should make it easier for one to get capital punishment. If I were being convicted of murder, I'd rather get lethal injection instead of being prison raped.

I really don't know what has to be going on in your head to see the problem of prison overcrowding and think "Well we better start killing more criminals".

[Pancakes Wrath]

I think capital punishment is a necessary sin.

WIthout it, prisons will be become even more crowded, and tax payers are already spending enough money on people that can't follow laws. In fact, they should make it easier for one to get capital punishment. If I were being convicted of murder, I'd rather get lethal injection instead of being prison raped.

The reason prisons in the US are so crowded is because of the number of people who get locked up for non-violent offenses, plus how long people are locked up. And the inmates on death row who don't want to die just keep appealing their sentences again and again, which takes a lot of time. They're not leaving, and if they are it's in very small numbers (usually once every few years). Meanwhile, more people not on death row are coming in while few people are leaving, and they're in for ages. The whole problem with the US system is the ridiculously long sentences.

And the problems with making execution of prisoners easier has been addressed already.

[The Richard Bastion Republic]

I think capital punishment is a necessary sin.

WIthout it, prisons will be become even more crowded, and tax payers are already spending enough money on people that can't follow laws. In fact, they should make it easier for one to get capital punishment. If I were being convicted of murder, I'd rather get lethal injection instead of being prison raped.

The reason prisons in the US are so crowded is because of the number of people who get locked up for non-violent offenses, plus how long people are locked up. And the inmates on death row who don't want to die just keep appealing their sentences again and again, which takes a lot of time. They're not leaving, and if they are it's in very small numbers (usually once every few years). Meanwhile, more people not on death row are coming in while few people are leaving, and they're in for ages. The whole problem with the US system is the ridiculously long sentences.

And the problems with making execution of prisoners easier has been addressed already.

The sentences must be kept long. We need more severe punishments in order to intimidate people from doing the crime.

[Pancakes Wrath]

The reason prisons in the US are so crowded is because of the number of people who get locked up for non-violent offenses, plus how long people are locked up. And the inmates on death row who don't want to die just keep appealing their sentences again and again, which takes a lot of time. They're not leaving, and if they are it's in very small numbers (usually once every few years). Meanwhile, more people not on death row are coming in while few people are leaving, and they're in for ages. The whole problem with the US system is the ridiculously long sentences.

And the problems with making execution of prisoners easier has been addressed already.

The sentences must be kept long. We need more severe punishments in order to intimidate people from doing the crime.

Deterrents don't work. Already addressed in the thread. And again, justice isn't so much about deterring people from crime, but resolving it and rehabilitating the criminal. A good justice system is pragmatic, not vengeful. Again, tough on crime does not mean smart on crime.

[Safed]

I think capital punishment is a necessary sin.

WIthout it, prisons will be become even more crowded, and tax payers are already spending enough money on people that can't follow laws. In fact, they should make it easier for one to get capital punishment. If I were being convicted of murder, I'd rather get lethal injection instead of being prison raped.

That must be why all those silly countries that don't have the death penalty have gone to the dogs.

Another idea to reduce crowding, get rid of the 3 strike rule, which lands 1 in 3 black american men in prison, and cases like 20 years for stealing a packet of biscuits?

[The Richard Bastion Republic]

The US gov does to much for the criminal, and not enough for victims and witnesses.

[No Water No Moon]

Right. I'm just saying, if the problem is 'people shouldn't treat each other that way' or that it's 'playing God with people's lives' - that 'problem' already exists. A death penalty isn't inventing that problem.

You could think of a death penalty as being the equivalent of a firebreak, for murder. Just as fire can stop the spread of fire, so making someone dead stops them spreading making-people-dead.

*nods*

You could, but you'd have to stop very quickly if you'd want to keep supporting the death penalty, because that's a better analogy in support of allowing lethal force in self defence. A spreading fire is a danger right now, so if we have to burn some shit down in a controlled fashion to keep it from spreading, that's cool. A killer coming at you with a knife is a danger right now, so if you have to go all ITG and pull out your highly customised automatic rifle with laser sight and IR scope and under-barrel grenade launcher and blow a sumbitch away, that's cool.

A killer who has already been arrested and convicted is not a danger right now. We can extinguish that fire without burning anything else down, we can eliminate the threat they pose to society without killing them.

I get what you're saying, which is why it pains me to get all literal, and point out that firebreaks are usually planned and prepared in advance.

[Safed]

The reason prisons in the US are so crowded is because of the number of people who get locked up for non-violent offenses, plus how long people are locked up. And the inmates on death row who don't want to die just keep appealing their sentences again and again, which takes a lot of time. They're not leaving, and if they are it's in very small numbers (usually once every few years). Meanwhile, more people not on death row are coming in while few people are leaving, and they're in for ages. The whole problem with the US system is the ridiculously long sentences.

And the problems with making execution of prisoners easier has been addressed already.

The sentences must be kept long. We need more severe punishments in order to intimidate people from doing the crime.

No, the long sentences and downright stupid laws like the three strike rule are the problem. 20 years for stealing biscuits as a 3rd offence. Really?

Obviously long sentences aren't a deterrent or people would stop after 2 offences no?

[Pancakes Wrath]

You could, but you'd have to stop very quickly if you'd want to keep supporting the death penalty, because that's a better analogy in support of allowing lethal force in self defence. A spreading fire is a danger right now, so if we have to burn some shit down in a controlled fashion to keep it from spreading, that's cool. A killer coming at you with a knife is a danger right now, so if you have to go all ITG and pull out your highly customised automatic rifle with laser sight and IR scope and under-barrel grenade launcher and blow a sumbitch away, that's cool.

A killer who has already been arrested and convicted is not a danger right now. We can extinguish that fire without burning anything else down, we can eliminate the threat they pose to society without killing them.

I get what you're saying, which is why it pains me to get all literal, and point out that firebreaks are usually planned and prepared in advance.

But that really only works when you're talking about nabbing a murderer to stop him. Doesn't really work when you think about after the murderer is caught and being sentenced. At that point you're investigating the fire and trying to figure out how to prevent it from happening again. Killing still doesn't solve anything.

[Isointania]

This is slightly daft. I mean, in the USA (for an example), they make the point in their courts that murder is VERY wrong, which it is, but then they get across that point by killing people in front of a audiance. Go figure NS...

[Steel Confessors]

Kill 'em all let the floating man in the sky sort 'em out.

[Pancakes Wrath]

The sentences must be kept long. We need more severe punishments in order to intimidate people from doing the crime.

No, the long sentences and downright stupid laws like the three strike rule are the problem. 20 years for stealing biscuits as a 3rd offence. Really?

Obviously long sentences aren't a deterrent or people would stop after 2 offences no?

Strangely enough, theft and robbery are the crimes with the highest rates of recidivism. The three strike rule sounds cool to uber-punitive Americans, but in reality it's a load of shit. An armed robber deserves the original 10 years, but stealing a pack of biscuits some years after his release does not warrant 25 to life.

The US does little to reduce recidivism, which would cut down on crime much more than stupidly long sentences would. And that, by the way, would also ease the overcrowding of US prisons. And, you know, not glorifying crime in the media and making it socially acceptable would be even more effective, but of course that's liberal hippie socialism.