If the punishment fits

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I cannot fathom why any person would want a society where some people are not afforded any protection of the law.

Well, no, that's not true. I can think of lots of reasons, but they're all horrible.

I can think of two good reasons:

1) The state would not need to provide the death penalty, so the state can still boast that they do not execute people.
2) For some vile crimes, we have a gut instinct to demand punishment, no matter if they're based on evidence or not. Outlawry recognizes that certain acts are so severe that no other means of punishment can be proportional to the crime, especially if that person was of sound mind at the time he committed the offense.

While rehabilitation is a good idea, and should be done for most crimes, for such severe crimes, it is impossible to rehabilitate certain criminals, mainly because of the acts that they have committed, in combination with society's reluctance to welcome them back into society once they did their time.

Expand upon "impossible to rehabilitate". How do you know when it's impossible?

[Calladan]

So what are your thoughts on capital punishment? Do you think it is completely unjust or a fitting punishment for certain crimes?

I personally believe that it is a fitting punishment for crimes such as murder, terrorism, child rape, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and drug dealing.

Parking on double yellow lines without a very good reason. And answering your mobile phone in the cinema or theatre. That's pretty much it.

[Luziyca]

I can think of two good reasons:

1) The state would not need to provide the death penalty, so the state can still boast that they do not execute people.
2) For some vile crimes, we have a gut instinct to demand punishment, no matter if they're based on evidence or not. Outlawry recognizes that certain acts are so severe that no other means of punishment can be proportional to the crime, especially if that person was of sound mind at the time he committed the offense.

While rehabilitation is a good idea, and should be done for most crimes, for such severe crimes, it is impossible to rehabilitate certain criminals, mainly because of the acts that they have committed, in combination with society's reluctance to welcome them back into society once they did their time.

Expand upon "impossible to rehabilitate". How do you know when it's impossible?

There are two ways that some criminals are impossible to rehabilitate.

Type A
Suppose we have a criminal. Let's call him O.

O kidnaps a person that we call V. V is tortured for a long amount of time and subject to unimaginable abuse. Then when the police attempt to rescue V, O kills V.

Now, suppose that we can rehabilitate O. After a long time, like say, 15 years in rehabilitation, he has managed to become a medic, and has found the cure for cancer.

But, we must consider society at large. If O were to be released back into society, would anyone want to hire a kidnapper and murderer? Even if he found the cure for cancer and is the best doctor in the world?

Definitely not.

In this case, it is socially impossible for him to be rehabilitated, because of the grave nature of his offenses.

Even if he leaves for another city, it is probable that his criminal record would follow him, and people would be loathe to deal with O. If O gets hired at a hospital, there would be so much outrage and uproar that O would probably lose his job in a matter of weeks, if not days.

That said, O's situation can vary depending on society: if it were a different society, O may actually be a prominent medic and be more well known for his cure for cancer. But in western society, there's no way O can be socially rehabilitated for what O had done to V.

Type B
Suppose we find another criminal. Let's call him Q.

Q is a cold-blooded serial killer who has no remorse at any point during his career, and despite previous efforts at rehabilitation, Q returns to the path of crime and kills more victims after his release.

Suppose the police finally catch Q after he killed yet another person, who we will call W. Q is found guilty of the murder of W, but we then reach a problem.

Considering that all past efforts at rehab have failed, it is virtually impossible for Q to be rehabilitated back into society, since all past efforts have failed, and he has no remorse for his actions whatsoever.

[Risottia]

I think the only cases when the death penalty fitted somewhat the need to prevent the reiteration of the crime was when the Nazifascist criminals were killed after being captured, and when the traitor Louis Capet was beheaded. And even then I would have had them imprisoned for life instead, not killed. I don't like the idea of killing a captured person, I find it antisocial to the point of criminality.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Expand upon "impossible to rehabilitate". How do you know when it's impossible?

There are two ways that some criminals are impossible to rehabilitate.

Type A
Suppose we have a criminal. Let's call him O.

O kidnaps a person that we call V. V is tortured for a long amount of time and subject to unimaginable abuse. Then when the police attempt to rescue V, O kills V.

Now, suppose that we can rehabilitate O. After a long time, like say, 15 years in rehabilitation, he has managed to become a medic, and has found the cure for cancer.

But, we must consider society at large. If O were to be released back into society, would anyone want to hire a kidnapper and murderer? Even if he found the cure for cancer and is the best doctor in the world?

Definitely not.

In this case, it is socially impossible for him to be rehabilitated, because of the grave nature of his offenses.

Even if he leaves for another city, it is probable that his criminal record would follow him, and people would be loathe to deal with O. If O gets hired at a hospital, there would be so much outrage and uproar that O would probably lose his job in a matter of weeks, if not days.

That said, O's situation can vary depending on society: if it were a different society, O may actually be a prominent medic and be more well known for his cure for cancer. But in western society, there's no way O can be socially rehabilitated for what O had done to V.

Type B
Suppose we find another criminal. Let's call him Q.

Q is a cold-blooded serial killer who has no remorse at any point during his career, and despite previous efforts at rehabilitation, Q returns to the path of crime and kills more victims after his release.

Suppose the police finally catch Q after he killed yet another person, who we will call W. Q is found guilty of the murder of W, but we then reach a problem.

Considering that all past efforts at rehab have failed, it is virtually impossible for Q to be rehabilitated back into society, since all past efforts have failed, and he has no remorse for his actions whatsoever.

Type A is a baseless assertion, contradicted by evidence, and doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable moral principle anyway. You'd punish a person who feels remorse for their crime simply because a hypothetical society wouldn't accept them?

"Oh, we reckon that if we let you go, people will be dicks to you, so we're just going to kill you to spare you that. Sound good?"

And even, even if we accept the nonsense premise that Western society is (and always will be) basically part one of Les Miserables, you could simply give rehabilitated criminals new identities, rather than killing them.

Type B is...yeah, sure. I'd still rather keep trying to rehabilitate, but whatever.

[Luziyca]

There are two ways that some criminals are impossible to rehabilitate.

Type A
Suppose we have a criminal. Let's call him O.

O kidnaps a person that we call V. V is tortured for a long amount of time and subject to unimaginable abuse. Then when the police attempt to rescue V, O kills V.

Now, suppose that we can rehabilitate O. After a long time, like say, 15 years in rehabilitation, he has managed to become a medic, and has found the cure for cancer.

But, we must consider society at large. If O were to be released back into society, would anyone want to hire a kidnapper and murderer? Even if he found the cure for cancer and is the best doctor in the world?

Definitely not.

In this case, it is socially impossible for him to be rehabilitated, because of the grave nature of his offenses.

Even if he leaves for another city, it is probable that his criminal record would follow him, and people would be loathe to deal with O. If O gets hired at a hospital, there would be so much outrage and uproar that O would probably lose his job in a matter of weeks, if not days.

That said, O's situation can vary depending on society: if it were a different society, O may actually be a prominent medic and be more well known for his cure for cancer. But in western society, there's no way O can be socially rehabilitated for what O had done to V.

Type B
Suppose we find another criminal. Let's call him Q.

Q is a cold-blooded serial killer who has no remorse at any point during his career, and despite previous efforts at rehabilitation, Q returns to the path of crime and kills more victims after his release.

Suppose the police finally catch Q after he killed yet another person, who we will call W. Q is found guilty of the murder of W, but we then reach a problem.

Considering that all past efforts at rehab have failed, it is virtually impossible for Q to be rehabilitated back into society, since all past efforts have failed, and he has no remorse for his actions whatsoever.

Type A is a baseless assertion, contradicted by evidence, and doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable moral principle anyway. You'd punish a person who feels remorse for their crime simply because a hypothetical society wouldn't accept them?

"Oh, we reckon that if we let you go, people will be dicks to you, so we're just going to kill you to spare you that. Sound good?"

And even, even if we accept the nonsense premise that Western society is (and always will be) basically part one of Les Miserables, you could simply give rehabilitated criminals new identities, rather than killing them.

So you would not object to sex offenders being teachers and doctors if they have shown remorse for their offenses?

Because even if O gets a new identity, people will find out what he did in the past. Especially with the internet.

For example, Homolka, who was prolific murderer and lives under a new identity, still faces mistreatment by the public long after she has been released.

[Cedoria]

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

If they were executed more quickly, it wouldn't cost so much.

And what is to stop them from killing other prisoners, killing guards, escaping, or influencing other inmates. If they are dead, they can do none of that.

What's really unjust is giving a murderer a home, free meals, free healthcare, and a right to live while they didn't show such mercy to their victims and while the victim's families suffer.

Of course, with 4% of those executed every year on average actually later found too be innocent, one could say Capital Punishment is more unjust.

How could you look a family member of somebody executed for a crime they didn't commit in the eye?

Not too mention that it is impossible for the justice system to ensure that no murderer ever kills again, even in one making extensive use of capital punishment, it's just not possible to do.

But it IS possible to make sure no innocent person is ever executed for a crime they did not commit, but that requires the abolition of this hideous concept of judicially sanctioned human sacrifice.

[Cedoria]

So someone, under your system, could be convicted of murder, but told by a judge that they'll serve life because the evidence against them isn't very concrete.

Yes, that is very true. The death penalty is only is there is enough evidence and witnesses. It is prevent people being framed.

Nobody is ever convicted without it being 'beyond reasonable doubt' they were convicted.

The fact is, mistakes can often be made, even with that dichotomy. 4% of executed inmates are innocent of the crime for which they are killed, on average. Considering the number of people executed each year, that's quite a large number of people murdered by the state each year.

And of course, the US goes further and executes minors in some states, more so then all the other unlovely places that still maintain judicial murder of underage kids put together... And they wonder what's wrong with kids these days...

[Cedoria]

Essentially this.

If we imprison somebody, and we later find out they're innocent, we can release them.

If we execute somebody, and we later find out they're innocent, we can't un-kill them.

There is of course the option of simply not executing murderers whose conviction is not entirely certain. Continue giving life-sentences to those who courts are mostly certain committed the crime, but execute those who courts are 100% certain committed the crime (be it via video evidence or otherwise).

There's really no reason to outright ban execution on the grounds of uncertainty. If you're somewhat uncertain that the accused is a murderer, but still have enough evidence to convict them, life-imprisonment can suffice.

No court is ever '100 percent certain'.

Nobody is ever convicted without it being 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Even with that high standard of proof, judicial errors are not uncommon.

Those who say they are in favour of this with '100 percent certainty' that the person in question commited the crime are crying for the moon, such a thing is simply not possible to determine. So it's a false dichotomy.

Too be intellectually honest, you would have too say that hypothetically, you would be in favour if there was 100% certainty the person committed the crime, but since that's not possible to determine, you are not in favour of people being executed by the state, since that's literally the only reasonable position you can draw from that.

[Salandriagado]

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

If they were executed more quickly, it wouldn't cost so much.

And what is to stop them from killing other prisoners, killing guards, escaping, or influencing other inmates. If they are dead, they can do none of that.

What's really unjust is giving a murderer a home, free meals, free healthcare, and a right to live while they didn't show such mercy to their victims and while the victim's families suffer.

And also you'd kill many thousands of innocent people.

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

I'm not too well versed in the costs of these sort of things. So can you explain to me how capital punishment per prisoner costs less than life imprisonment for at lest 50 or 60 or so years. It would seem that it would be cheaper to execute a prisoner than to pay for their needs for that long a time. Unless a single dose of lethal injection costs way more than I assume it does.

The process to minimise the chance of killing an innocent person is the expensive part.

So someone, under your system, could be convicted of murder, but told by a judge that they'll serve life because the evidence against them isn't very concrete.

Yes, that is very true. The death penalty is only is there is enough evidence and witnesses. It is prevent people being framed.

You are aware, of course, that eyewitness testimony is just about the least reliable evidence going? And that people are regularly convicted on what seems like inarguable evidence, and later found to be innocent?

Well, whether a punishment is "fitting" or not is entirely subjective. Personally, I think the death penalty makes sense from a perspective of resources; a firing squad is cheaper than holding someone in a cell for the rest of their life. That being said, however, it seems to be excessive and ultimately unnecessary as a prevention tool (not to mention incompatible with my "ideal" system of law and justice)

Incorrect: the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment.

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

A hypothetical question: let's say that I'm Osama bin Laden, and I got captured by the US government instead of executed and I'm serving multiple consecutive life sentences at Supermax or some other really secure prison. Since this is all hypothetical anyway, let's say I'm in my 20's instead of an older person (i.e. "I have my whole life ahead of me"). Literally the supposed purpose of prison is to isolate members of society that break its laws, and rehabilitate them. If my hypothetical Osama bin Laden (young) is serving multiple life sentences (likely with no possibility of parole), it seems odd to keep someone alive whom society sentenced to die in prison because they're too dangerous, and their crimes too heinous. There will never be 'perfect justice, government' et al as long as humans are around, because entropy always increases, it doesn't even have anything to do with humans. But it seems... shortsighted to lock someone up and throw away the key in modern society. If they're so dangerous, why keep handling them? Execute and get it over with, and give everyone affected closure.

Yes. Life without the possibility of parole also shouldn't be a thing.

Essentially this.

If we imprison somebody, and we later find out they're innocent, we can release them.

If we execute somebody, and we later find out they're innocent, we can't un-kill them.

There is of course the option of simply not executing murderers whose conviction is not entirely certain. Continue giving life-sentences to those who courts are mostly certain committed the crime, but execute those who courts are 100% certain committed the crime (be it via video evidence or otherwise).

There's really no reason to outright ban execution on the grounds of uncertainty. If you're somewhat uncertain that the accused is a murderer, but still have enough evidence to convict them, life-imprisonment can suffice.

That's exactly equivalent to never executing anybody. No conviction is ever entirely certain.

You can't really ever be completely certain.

Video evidence tends to be rather conclusive, especially if from multiple sources and there is no evidence of tampering.

But not certain: it could be someone who happens to look very similar.

Can video evidence show whether a person was sane? Whether they were acting under duress? Whether they were under the influence of drugs?

Those can be determined by psychologists, investigators and drug testing.

Not in any way that can be considered even remotely "certain". Do you have any idea how wide the error margins on, say, drug testing for professional athletes, is? Or how often mental illness diagnoses are completely wrong?

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

The only reason it costs more is the mandatory appeals which just serves to inflate Lawyer's wallets.

And reduce the number of innocent people that get killed.

Not with total certainty.

If mistakes happen, so be it.

No system is perfect.

We have a choice between a system where our mistakes can be rectified, and one where they can't. One of these is strictly better than the other.

And it's illegal for good reasons. And besides, if the threat of death doesn't deter people then the threat of torture and death hardly will.

That's your opinion, one that I don't share. That's a meaningless argument, deterrent punishments will never be fully effective, there will always be some psycho who is unfazed by any deterrent punishment. Being less than 100% effective doesn't disqualify a deterrent punishment from being used.

No, it's just a fact: above a certain (fairly low) level, the deterrent effect doesn't increase with the severity of punishment. Most people who commit crimes do so operating under the assumption that they wont get caught.

Who will be executed in turn when the state wrongfully executes someone?

Ideally, the investigation will be re-opened and the correct perpetrator found.

If not, then it is unlikely anyone would be executed. In most such cases, the convict's innocence is discovered decades after the fact, so it is usually impossible to find the real murderer by that point. In such instances, one must simply compensate the next-of-kin for their loss. That's really the best one can do.

Or, if you hadn't killed them, you could release them and compensate them directly.

You have to ask yourself if you are morally right to torture someone and how effective deterrence it would be. You could be executed for petty thief in medieval times but it was often never followed upon.

We practice pain compliance on animals. It's a tool, hard wired into us. We act in such a way as to avoid inflicting additional pain upon ourselves. Therefore, an adequate threat of pain would naturally deter a normal individual from committing an act. If they aren't deterred, as a result of mental illness or defect, then obviously it would fail, but in such a situation I doubt incarceration would effectively deter them either.

Pain compliance only works if you do the conditioning phase first: that is, you have to torture millions or billions of innocent people, repeatedly, over a period of decades (and, for that matter, deliberately encouraging those innocent people to break the law, so that you can torture them). There's also a pretty short window on feedback cycle time:

And also to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed.

Actually not really, they don't try to appeal the crime, they try to appeal the sentence, as in they continue to claim that the piece of shit is guilty yet somehow deserves life.

That's a question of courtroom tactics, not fact.

Which serves to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed.

If they truly believed the person to be innocent then they'd be trying to appeal the crime not the sentence. So you're lying.

No, you appeal in whatever manner is most likely to save your life, regardless of whether or not you are innocent.

I cannot fathom why any person would want a society where some people are not afforded any protection of the law.

Well, no, that's not true. I can think of lots of reasons, but they're all horrible.

I can think of two good reasons:

1) The state would not need to provide the death penalty, so the state can still boast that they do not execute people.
2) For some vile crimes, we have a gut instinct to demand punishment, no matter if they're based on evidence or not. Outlawry recognizes that certain acts are so severe that no other means of punishment can be proportional to the crime, especially if that person was of sound mind at the time he committed the offense.

While rehabilitation is a good idea, and should be done for most crimes, for such severe crimes, it is impossible to rehabilitate certain criminals, mainly because of the acts that they have committed, in combination with society's reluctance to welcome them back into society once they did their time.

PROTIP: There's a reason they got rid of outlawry. I suggest reading about Robin Hood for the exact reason, but to state it simply: if you give people no choice other than to steal and kill in order to live, they will steal and kill.

Expand upon "impossible to rehabilitate". How do you know when it's impossible?

There are two ways that some criminals are impossible to rehabilitate.

Type A
Suppose we have a criminal. Let's call him O.

O kidnaps a person that we call V. V is tortured for a long amount of time and subject to unimaginable abuse. Then when the police attempt to rescue V, O kills V.

Now, suppose that we can rehabilitate O. After a long time, like say, 15 years in rehabilitation, he has managed to become a medic, and has found the cure for cancer.

But, we must consider society at large. If O were to be released back into society, would anyone want to hire a kidnapper and murderer? Even if he found the cure for cancer and is the best doctor in the world?

Definitely not.

In this case, it is socially impossible for him to be rehabilitated, because of the grave nature of his offenses.

Even if he leaves for another city, it is probable that his criminal record would follow him, and people would be loathe to deal with O. If O gets hired at a hospital, there would be so much outrage and uproar that O would probably lose his job in a matter of weeks, if not days.

That said, O's situation can vary depending on society: if it were a different society, O may actually be a prominent medic and be more well known for his cure for cancer. But in western society, there's no way O can be socially rehabilitated for what O had done to V.

This is precisely why the right to be forgotten is a thing. If you don't tell people about their past, nobody will know, and therefore nobody will care.

Type B
Suppose we find another criminal. Let's call him Q.

Q is a cold-blooded serial killer who has no remorse at any point during his career, and despite previous efforts at rehabilitation, Q returns to the path of crime and kills more victims after his release.

Suppose the police finally catch Q after he killed yet another person, who we will call W. Q is found guilty of the murder of W, but we then reach a problem.

Considering that all past efforts at rehab have failed, it is virtually impossible for Q to be rehabilitated back into society, since all past efforts have failed, and he has no remorse for his actions whatsoever.

That's not "impossible". That's "we did a shit job last time, so we're going to give up".

Type A is a baseless assertion, contradicted by evidence, and doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable moral principle anyway. You'd punish a person who feels remorse for their crime simply because a hypothetical society wouldn't accept them?

"Oh, we reckon that if we let you go, people will be dicks to you, so we're just going to kill you to spare you that. Sound good?"

And even, even if we accept the nonsense premise that Western society is (and always will be) basically part one of Les Miserables, you could simply give rehabilitated criminals new identities, rather than killing them.

So you would not object to sex offenders being teachers and doctors if they have shown remorse for their offenses?

The point of rehabilitation is to get to the point where you are confident that they are no longer a risk. So yes.

Because even if O gets a new identity, people will find out what he did in the past. Especially with the internet.

For example, Homolka, who was prolific murderer and lives under a new identity, still faces mistreatment by the public long after she has been released.

Someone did a shit job of hiding his old identity. Doesn't mean that it's impossible.

[Cedoria]

And also to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed.

Actually not really, they don't try to appeal the crime, they try to appeal the sentence, as in they continue to claim that the piece of shit is guilty yet somehow deserves life.

Very, very nice strawman. I couldn't have done it better if I tried.

No, one is just as common as the other, actually...

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Type A is a baseless assertion, contradicted by evidence, and doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable moral principle anyway. You'd punish a person who feels remorse for their crime simply because a hypothetical society wouldn't accept them?

"Oh, we reckon that if we let you go, people will be dicks to you, so we're just going to kill you to spare you that. Sound good?"

And even, even if we accept the nonsense premise that Western society is (and always will be) basically part one of Les Miserables, you could simply give rehabilitated criminals new identities, rather than killing them.

So you would not object to sex offenders being teachers and doctors if they have shown remorse for their offenses?

Because even if O gets a new identity, people will find out what he did in the past. Especially with the internet.

For example, Homolka, who was prolific murderer and lives under a new identity, still faces mistreatment by the public long after she has been released.

We're talking about sex offenders now? What happened to murder/torture? As others have pointed out, punishing sex offences with death is a really stupid idea.

So, some people might suffer somewhat, so we should kill those people, delivering certain oblivion in order to avert possible hardship? I believe I shall also make use of the eyeroll emoji:

Nah, you see, if your claim is that Western society will always persecute ex-cons to the point that their life is not worth living, it's not enough to point to one such person suffering. You need to show that no such person has ever found life worth living after release. Good luck with that.

[Luziyca]

So you would not object to sex offenders being teachers and doctors if they have shown remorse for their offenses?

Because even if O gets a new identity, people will find out what he did in the past. Especially with the internet.

For example, Homolka, who was prolific murderer and lives under a new identity, still faces mistreatment by the public long after she has been released.

We're talking about sex offenders now? What happened to murder/torture? As others have pointed out, punishing sex offences with death is a really stupid idea.

So, some people might suffer somewhat, so we should kill those people, delivering certain oblivion in order to avert possible hardship? I believe I shall also make use of the eyeroll emoji:

Nah, you see, if your claim is that Western society will always persecute ex-cons to the point that their life is not worth living, it's not enough to point to one such person suffering. You need to show that no such person has ever found life worth living after release. Good luck with that.

Not all ex-cons.

If someone was caught with a small bag of weed, then if they do get persecuted after their release, it would probably be only local. If that person moves elsewhere, like say, Toronto, then most people won't give a fuck.

But if that person was a murderer or a sex offender, that's a whole different story.

[Luziyca]

I can think of two good reasons:

1) The state would not need to provide the death penalty, so the state can still boast that they do not execute people.
2) For some vile crimes, we have a gut instinct to demand punishment, no matter if they're based on evidence or not. Outlawry recognizes that certain acts are so severe that no other means of punishment can be proportional to the crime, especially if that person was of sound mind at the time he committed the offense.

While rehabilitation is a good idea, and should be done for most crimes, for such severe crimes, it is impossible to rehabilitate certain criminals, mainly because of the acts that they have committed, in combination with society's reluctance to welcome them back into society once they did their time.

PROTIP: There's a reason they got rid of outlawry. I suggest reading about Robin Hood for the exact reason, but to state it simply: if you give people no choice other than to steal and kill in order to live, they will steal and kill.

You do have a point there. But I think the fear of being cast out of society entirely, and being killed by a lynch mob would probably deter some criminals. Not all, but some.

There are two ways that some criminals are impossible to rehabilitate.

Type A
Suppose we have a criminal. Let's call him O.

O kidnaps a person that we call V. V is tortured for a long amount of time and subject to unimaginable abuse. Then when the police attempt to rescue V, O kills V.

Now, suppose that we can rehabilitate O. After a long time, like say, 15 years in rehabilitation, he has managed to become a medic, and has found the cure for cancer.

But, we must consider society at large. If O were to be released back into society, would anyone want to hire a kidnapper and murderer? Even if he found the cure for cancer and is the best doctor in the world?

Definitely not.

In this case, it is socially impossible for him to be rehabilitated, because of the grave nature of his offenses.

Even if he leaves for another city, it is probable that his criminal record would follow him, and people would be loathe to deal with O. If O gets hired at a hospital, there would be so much outrage and uproar that O would probably lose his job in a matter of weeks, if not days.

That said, O's situation can vary depending on society: if it were a different society, O may actually be a prominent medic and be more well known for his cure for cancer. But in western society, there's no way O can be socially rehabilitated for what O had done to V.

This is precisely why the right to be forgotten is a thing. If you don't tell people about their past, nobody will know, and therefore nobody will care.

Because there's no possible way that people can recognize some sort of facial feature, take a photo, and compare it with a photo of the ex-con...

Type B
Suppose we find another criminal. Let's call him Q.

Q is a cold-blooded serial killer who has no remorse at any point during his career, and despite previous efforts at rehabilitation, Q returns to the path of crime and kills more victims after his release.

Suppose the police finally catch Q after he killed yet another person, who we will call W. Q is found guilty of the murder of W, but we then reach a problem.

Considering that all past efforts at rehab have failed, it is virtually impossible for Q to be rehabilitated back into society, since all past efforts have failed, and he has no remorse for his actions whatsoever.

That's not "impossible". That's "we did a shit job last time, so we're going to give up".

Perhaps, but if such efforts have been tried and failed like at least ten or so times... we can try more time or more money, but would it be in the public interest?

So you would not object to sex offenders being teachers and doctors if they have shown remorse for their offenses?

The point of rehabilitation is to get to the point where you are confident that they are no longer a risk. So yes.

Because even if O gets a new identity, people will find out what he did in the past. Especially with the internet.

For example, Homolka, who was prolific murderer and lives under a new identity, still faces mistreatment by the public long after she has been released.

Someone did a shit job of hiding his old identity. Doesn't mean that it's impossible.

That's fair.

[Salandriagado]

PROTIP: There's a reason they got rid of outlawry. I suggest reading about Robin Hood for the exact reason, but to state it simply: if you give people no choice other than to steal and kill in order to live, they will steal and kill.

You do have a point there. But I think the fear of being cast out of society entirely, and being killed by a lynch mob would probably deter some criminals. Not all, but some.

Again: deterrent effects do not scale with severity above a fairly low threshold.

This is precisely why the right to be forgotten is a thing. If you don't tell people about their past, nobody will know, and therefore nobody will care.

Because there's no possible way that people can recognize some sort of facial feature, take a photo, and compare it with a photo of the ex-con...

People don't look nearly as unique as you seem to think. For any given ex-con, there are probably some thousands of people around who look more similar to the available photographs of them than that ex-con themselves does after a few years in prison.

That's not "impossible". That's "we did a shit job last time, so we're going to give up".

Perhaps, but if such efforts have been tried and failed like at least ten or so times... we can try more time or more money, but would it be in the public interest?

Yup. You keep trying. "It's too expensive, I'm just going to start killing people" is not a reasonable position (especially when those executions are, themselves, expensive).

[Luziyca]

You do have a point there. But I think the fear of being cast out of society entirely, and being killed by a lynch mob would probably deter some criminals. Not all, but some.

Again: deterrent effects do not scale with severity above a fairly low threshold.

Because there's no possible way that people can recognize some sort of facial feature, take a photo, and compare it with a photo of the ex-con...

People don't look nearly as unique as you seem to think. For any given ex-con, there are probably some thousands of people around who look more similar to the available photographs of them than that ex-con themselves does after a few years in prison.

Perhaps, but if such efforts have been tried and failed like at least ten or so times... we can try more time or more money, but would it be in the public interest?

Yup. You keep trying. "It's too expensive, I'm just going to start killing people" is not a reasonable position (especially when those executions are, themselves, expensive).

Not if we just stripped the convict of all legal protection and made him or her an outlaw.

But if the choice is between death or rehabilitation, for most offenses, it would be good to go for rehabilitation. But for graver offenses, I'd lean towards death.

[Salandriagado]

Again: deterrent effects do not scale with severity above a fairly low threshold.



People don't look nearly as unique as you seem to think. For any given ex-con, there are probably some thousands of people around who look more similar to the available photographs of them than that ex-con themselves does after a few years in prison.



Yup. You keep trying. "It's too expensive, I'm just going to start killing people" is not a reasonable position (especially when those executions are, themselves, expensive).

Not if we just stripped the convict of all legal protection and made him or her an outlaw.

(Assuming this is in response to the costing): How often do you want to do that to innocent people? There's a reason we put so much effort into keeping people alive in jails. Also, literally forcing people to commit more crimes is still a terrible idea.

But if the choice is between death or rehabilitation, for most offenses, it would be good to go for rehabilitation.[/quote]

[Luziyca]

Not if we just stripped the convict of all legal protection and made him or her an outlaw.

(Assuming this is in response to the costing): How often do you want to do that to innocent people? There's a reason we put so much effort into keeping people alive in jails. Also, literally forcing people to commit more crimes is still a terrible idea.

Ideally, not a lot, but sometimes, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. Hence why I suggested that it only takes effect within 30 days of the sentencing, or when the last appeal has been denied or maintaining that outlaw verdict. Gives the offender enough time to consider appealing his sentence or the crime.

Also, considering that the demographics have changed from the time of Robin Hood to a degree that most people now live in urban areas in much of the western world, while the outlaws will still resort to these means, it is doubtful that they would last as long as Robin Hood and his band before someone "takes care" of the problem, so to speak.

[Valgora]

While I consider myself a libertarian (libertarian marxist/socialist/communist), I do support capital punishment.
However, the death penalty should only be for terrible crimes such as murder, rape, etc.

I also support replacing lethal injection with firing squads. Firing squads should consist of 5 men, with 1 or 2 having actual bullets and 3 or 4 having blanks.

On another note, I support using inmates who would get the death penalty to have medical experiments done on them. This might sound harsh; however, why should some poor animals be subject to medical experiments when we have these people who deserve death. Not only that, but animals are chosen for certain experiments based off of how similar a certain aspect of their biology is similar to humans; following that train of logic, I think it would be better to just use humans.

Galloism said: "but our justice system is no where near accurate enough to carry it out without mistakes."
I do agree, and we should find a way to make the justice system accurate to where possible mistakes are very rare (at least, preferably no mistakes.)

[Salandriagado]

(Assuming this is in response to the costing): How often do you want to do that to innocent people? There's a reason we put so much effort into keeping people alive in jails. Also, literally forcing people to commit more crimes is still a terrible idea.

Ideally, not a lot, but sometimes, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. Hence why I suggested that it only takes effect within 30 days of the sentencing, or when the last appeal has been denied or maintaining that outlaw verdict. Gives the offender enough time to consider appealing his sentence or the crime.

There is a solution that involves getting zero innocent people killed. You have demonstrated precisely zero benefits for your proposal over that solution.

Also, considering that the demographics have changed from the time of Robin Hood to a degree that most people now live in urban areas in much of the western world, while the outlaws will still resort to these means, it is doubtful that they would last as long as Robin Hood and his band before someone "takes care" of the problem, so to speak.

You are underestimating by several orders of magnitude just quite how fucking massive the countryside is.

[Calladan]

See - my question for those people who say "we should have a justice system where mistakes are rare" is what if it was your son/daughter/wife/husband/sister/brother/mother/father/etc who was the subject of one of those mistakes? Would you still want criminals executed if - for whatever reason - someone you loved was innocent and yet still put to death (and or tortured with medical experiments as someone suggested)?

I figure it's easy to talk about this in the abstract, but when you start thinking about it in real terms, you might change your mind.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I don't like, killing any criminal should be a last resort, can't get them stop peacefully, no chance of subduing them without lethal force. Killing an unarmed person while they're restrained just feels like murder

[San Marlindo]

High treason.

If a military general sells secrets to the enemy during wartime, jeopardizing the security of thousands of personnel he is responsible for - to say nothing of the country's national security interests - that qualifies as a capital crime pretty well.

[Internationalist Bastard]

High treason.

If a military general sells secrets to the enemy during wartime, jeopardizing the security of thousands of personnel he is responsible for - to say nothing of the country's national security interests - that qualifies as a capital crime pretty well.

Meh, that's a bash in the head and toss in the darkest hole you got, assuming you can stop the army justice

[Oneracon]

None, capital punishment is never justified. The state killing murderers simply means that all citizens become complicit in the crime they claim to be so heinous.