If the punishment fits

[New Grestin]

In regards to the bolded point (that I have bolded), does this include crimes that are so grave that just being charged with them basically causes the public to assume you are guilty until proven otherwise? That even if they are acquitted or could theoretically be rehabilitated for that crime, there is an ice cube's chance in hell that society would ever welcome them back?

Because if so, I cannot blame them if the death penalty were implemented.

Though personally, if I were in charge and they were convicted of these grave offenses, I'd favor bringing back outlawry if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was of sound mind. Of course, the sentence will only start 30 days after either the final appeal was denied, or if the outlaw refuses to file any appeal for the offense. But once you're considered an outlaw... good luck with having a life.

I don't think I could get behind the implementation of an outlaw system. That opens up a myriad of system loopholes that would inevitably be exploited by the state or various groups. In the case of the United States, were an outlaw system implemented, I'd find it highly likely that certain elements of the state might exploit that to extrajudicially eliminate threats to their control. What's to stop bribery from corporate groups to outlaw certain individuals, allowing them to be swiftly killed and swept under the rug?

It's a borderline dystopian system that would be immediately exploited by the state, corporations and special interest groups.

In regards to the prior point, it's not a matter of if they are accepted back into society or not. Buckling to public opinion and executing a major public criminal is little more than allowing an often uninformed populace to force it's will on the judicial process.

My point was that if an individual is either incapable of being rehabilitated, or simply refuses to do so, and all other options have been exhausted, then the death penalty would be justified. It would be used as the absolute last resort, rather than something used from the get-go.

If someone were acquitted from a particularly abhorrent crime and released back into the public, that is no longer the responsibility of the state beyond enforcing rule of law and preventing vigilantism. The role of the state would be to attempt to make the individual suitable for returning to the public, perhaps even with some post-release followups with parole and psychiatric personnel in a perfect system. The biggest thing would be getting them back into a semi-normal life and working again, so as to prevent a relapse into crime and a further waste of state resources.

If some white-knight vigilante decided to go after the released individual, then that person would therefore need to be removed from the population for rehabilitation and detainment themselves. Relatively simple.

[The Great Devourer of All]

I think genocide and purposeful damage to the environment on a large scale should be the only crimes worthy of the death penalty. Any national court that convicted someone of one of these crimes would ideally have to automatically send the case to the ICC for a final trial.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I think genocide and purposeful damage to the environment on a large scale should be the only crimes worthy of the death penalty. Any national court that convicted someone of one of these crimes would ideally have to automatically send the case to the ICC for a final trial.

No, I'd rather watch those bastards slowly rot

[Noraika]

The places where I think capital punishment is appropriate are for the following crimes:

• Multiple or repeat offences of child rape.
• Serial Murder or Rape
• Mass Murder
• Human Trafficking
• Engagement in the slave trade (selling, purchasing, transporting, organising, etc)
• Acts of Terrorism
• Acts of Severe Treason
• Instance where a prisoner is deemed to dangerous to society to be worth the risk of keeping alive on a case-by-case basis

[Ifreann]

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.

An irrelevant distinction to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

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.

Gut feelings are better addressed with an antacid than with crimes against humanity.

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.

Even if that's the case, therefore revoking all their rights is insane. If they're a danger to society then keep them in prison. If they can't get decent treatment in society because of their infamous crimes, give them a new identity.

[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.

An irrelevant distinction to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

Perhaps. But the state won't really kill the person. The people can just be informed of the outlaw, and assuming that they're not in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, the mob will take care of them.

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.

Gut feelings are better addressed with an antacid than with crimes against humanity.

I'm sorry, but that by itself is so amusing that it is going to the Awesome quotes thread as soon as I'm done making this post.

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.

Even if that's the case, therefore revoking all their rights is insane. If they're a danger to society then keep them in prison. If they can't get decent treatment in society because of their infamous crimes, give them a new identity.

1) I agree with your point of keeping them in prison if they're still a danger to society.
2) For the new identity, if they committed a serious offense, and the punishment is light enough, people will be screeching in rage and demand "justice."

For the Homolka case that I mentioned earlier, according to this source (as linked from the Wikipedia article of Karla Homolka), "a poll of 9,521 voters concluded that 63.27% believed that the public had the right to know Homolka's location, 18.57% of voters believed that she deserved anonymity, and 18.16% believed that Homolka should be permitted to receive anonymity in about 50 years."

In regards to the bolded point (that I have bolded), does this include crimes that are so grave that just being charged with them basically causes the public to assume you are guilty until proven otherwise? That even if they are acquitted or could theoretically be rehabilitated for that crime, there is an ice cube's chance in hell that society would ever welcome them back?

Because if so, I cannot blame them if the death penalty were implemented.

Though personally, if I were in charge and they were convicted of these grave offenses, I'd favor bringing back outlawry if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was of sound mind. Of course, the sentence will only start 30 days after either the final appeal was denied, or if the outlaw refuses to file any appeal for the offense. But once you're considered an outlaw... good luck with having a life.

I don't think I could get behind the implementation of an outlaw system. That opens up a myriad of system loopholes that would inevitably be exploited by the state or various groups. In the case of the United States, were an outlaw system implemented, I'd find it highly likely that certain elements of the state might exploit that to extrajudicially eliminate threats to their control. What's to stop bribery from corporate groups to outlaw certain individuals, allowing them to be swiftly killed and swept under the rug?

It's a borderline dystopian system that would be immediately exploited by the state, corporations and special interest groups.

Which is why that it should only be used for serious crimes, like first-degree murder, first-degree sexual assault, human trafficking, and terrorism. No other charges.

As well, it should only be done via a court of law, not just have the sheriff write up a writ of outlawry and declare "you're no longer under legal protection." Thus, it allows both sides to present evidence, and then allowing the jury or judge to determine whether outlawry is appropriate or not.

In regards to the prior point, it's not a matter of if they are accepted back into society or not. Buckling to public opinion and executing a major public criminal is little more than allowing an often uninformed populace to force it's will on the judicial process.

Because the fact of the matter is that if governments do not buckle to public opinion for executing a major public criminal, come next election, they'll be voting for someone else who can do such a thing.

It shouldn't be, but never underestimate the ability of humanity to ignore reason and retreat back into their animalistic instincts.

My point was that if an individual is either incapable of being rehabilitated, or simply refuses to do so, and all other options have been exhausted, then the death penalty would be justified. It would be used as the absolute last resort, rather than something used from the get-go.

That, I agree with.

If someone were acquitted from a particularly abhorrent crime and released back into the public, that is no longer the responsibility of the state beyond enforcing rule of law and preventing vigilantism. The role of the state would be to attempt to make the individual suitable for returning to the public, perhaps even with some post-release followups with parole and psychiatric personnel in a perfect system. The biggest thing would be getting them back into a semi-normal life and working again, so as to prevent a relapse into crime and a further waste of state resources.

That would be an ideal solution.

But when you consider how popular "tough on crime" initiatives are, with the mandatory sentences in the States, or the election of Duterte in the Philippines, combined with public opinion on such matters, how can we get them to work? Especially when in the States, you have to put a tick in a box if you have ever been convicted of a felony.

If some white-knight vigilante decided to go after the released individual, then that person would therefore need to be removed from the population for rehabilitation and detainment themselves. Relatively simple.

That, I agree. But I imagine that a jury would be more sympathetic to the vigilante than to the released individual.

[USS Monitor]

And what is to stop them from killing other prisoners, killing guards, escaping, or influencing other inmates.

I dunno... Maybe locks on the doors? Cuffs? Armed guards? Electric fences? Something like that.

You can separate inmates that you think are likely to be a bad influence on one another.

[Ifreann]

An irrelevant distinction to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

Perhaps. But the state won't really kill the person. The people can just be informed of the outlaw, and assuming that they're not in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, the mob will take care of them.

Gut feelings are better addressed with an antacid than with crimes against humanity.

I'm sorry, but that by itself is so amusing that it is going to the Awesome quotes thread as soon as I'm done making this post.

Even if that's the case, therefore revoking all their rights is insane. If they're a danger to society then keep them in prison. If they can't get decent treatment in society because of their infamous crimes, give them a new identity.

1) I agree with your point of keeping them in prison if they're still a danger to society.
2) For the new identity, if they committed a serious offense, and the punishment is light enough, people will be screeching in rage and demand "justice."

Let them scream. Better angry than killers.

[Arkinesia]

Capital punishment is barbarism, pure and simple. We have prisons, let murderers and the like rot if need be.

[Luziyca]

Perhaps. But the state won't really kill the person. The people can just be informed of the outlaw, and assuming that they're not in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, the mob will take care of them.


I'm sorry, but that by itself is so amusing that it is going to the Awesome quotes thread as soon as I'm done making this post.


1) I agree with your point of keeping them in prison if they're still a danger to society.
2) For the new identity, if they committed a serious offense, and the punishment is light enough, people will be screeching in rage and demand "justice."

Let them scream. Better angry than killers.

Until next election when the opposition pledges new penalties to appease the crowd... and again... and again... until the people get what they feel is "justice," even though it is not truly justice.

Admittedly, outlawry is not justice, but at least the condemned are kept alive (for now), but given a fate that may be worse than death.

[Costa Fierro]

I oppose capital punishment because I oppose state sanctioned murder.

[Ifreann]

Let them scream. Better angry than killers.

Until next election when the opposition pledges new penalties to appease the crowd... and again... and again... until the people get what they feel is "justice," even though it is not truly justice.

Admittedly, outlawry is not justice, but at least the condemned are kept alive (for now), but given a fate that may be worse than death.

Like when Canada elected the party promising to bring back the death penalty? Or the UK? Or Ireland? France?

People might say they want the death penalty when pollsters ask. They might demand it when a shocking crime makes the headlines. Nonetheless, the death penalty has been abolished in most of the world.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Total support.

I want to follow Texas's example and install an express lane.

[Luziyca]

Until next election when the opposition pledges new penalties to appease the crowd... and again... and again... until the people get what they feel is "justice," even though it is not truly justice.

Admittedly, outlawry is not justice, but at least the condemned are kept alive (for now), but given a fate that may be worse than death.

Like when Canada elected the party promising to bring back the death penalty? Or the UK? Or Ireland? France?

People might say they want the death penalty when pollsters ask. They might demand it when a shocking crime makes the headlines. Nonetheless, the death penalty has been abolished in most of the world.

That is true. Plus, even if they ran on a platform to be tough on crime or hell, reintroduce the death penalty, we all know how often politicians lie about stuff.

To be honest, I'm glad that I'm actually reading the posts of this thread and discussing capital punishment outside of Facebook comment sections where people want death for certain criminals, or at the very least, harsh punishments that border on crimes against humanity. But that's an entire tangent.

[Telconi]

I oppose capital punishment because I oppose state sanctioned murder.

But you're cool with state sanctioned kidnapping, theft, and human rights violations?

Because of execution is "state sanctioned murder" how is incarceration not "state sanctioned kidnapping"? Or disenfranchisement not "state sanctioned human right's violations"? Etc.

[Neutraligon]

There is only one case where I can think of that I support the death penalty. That would be that even when caught and imprisoned the person continues to be a threat to society.

[Dylar]

There is only one case where I can think of that I support the death penalty. That would be that even when caught and imprisoned the person continues to be a threat to society.

And even those cases are extremely rare. Which is why I don't support the death penalty for any of these cases. All these cases are sad, yes, but that shouldn't justify government sanctioned murder.

[Arumbia67]

None at all. Justice is supposed to be applied equally, and the death penalty most certainly isn't. There are more living medal of honor recipients than women who have received the death penalty since 1900. There's a pretty large racial disparity as well.

[Big Jim P]

The justice system isn't for revenge. It's for preventing crime... And capital punishment (even on the rare occasions when they kill the right person) doesn't do that, so: None.

Bullshit. Dead men commit no further crimes. It isn't about punishment or revenge. It is about putting down known dangerous animals. No different than putting down a vicious dog.

[Ifreann]

There is only one case where I can think of that I support the death penalty. That would be that even when caught and imprisoned the person continues to be a threat to society.

The Joker. *nods*

[Neutraligon]

There is only one case where I can think of that I support the death penalty. That would be that even when caught and imprisoned the person continues to be a threat to society.

The Joker. *nods*

Essentially. I can't think of any except who meat that description in real life. Maybe certain cult leaders but even then I don't think they really fit the description so long as you ensure they cannot give orders to their followers.

[Salandriagado]

I oppose capital punishment because I oppose state sanctioned murder.

But you're cool with state sanctioned kidnapping, theft, and human rights violations?

Because of execution is "state sanctioned murder" how is incarceration not "state sanctioned kidnapping"? Or disenfranchisement not "state sanctioned human right's violations"? Etc.

Disenfranchisement shouldn't be a thing, fines should be paid to the victims (or families thereof, or funds established to help victims in general if no specific victim can be found), and prison should be closer to a compulsory residential rehabilitative course than anything else.

[Zakuvia]

But you're cool with state sanctioned kidnapping, theft, and human rights violations?

Because of execution is "state sanctioned murder" how is incarceration not "state sanctioned kidnapping"? Or disenfranchisement not "state sanctioned human right's violations"? Etc.

Disenfranchisement shouldn't be a thing, fines should be paid to the victims (or families thereof, or funds established to help victims in general if no specific victim can be found), and prison should be closer to a compulsory residential rehabilitative course than anything else.

And if a poor person isn't able to pay off what amounts to that 'sin tax'? What's the disincentive for a socially maligned person? And at what point do you separate 'compulsory rehab' from 'state sanctioned kidnapping'?

[Salandriagado]

Disenfranchisement shouldn't be a thing, fines should be paid to the victims (or families thereof, or funds established to help victims in general if no specific victim can be found), and prison should be closer to a compulsory residential rehabilitative course than anything else.

And if a poor person isn't able to pay off what amounts to that 'sin tax'?

As we already do, fines should be proportional to income.

hat's the disincentive for a socially maligned person?

The prison time.

And at what point do you separate 'compulsory rehab' from 'state sanctioned kidnapping'?

The former is in the best interests of the person.

[Zakuvia]

And if a poor person isn't able to pay off what amounts to that 'sin tax'?

As we already do, fines should be proportional to income.

hat's the disincentive for a socially maligned person?

The prison time.

And at what point do you separate 'compulsory rehab' from 'state sanctioned kidnapping'?

The former is in the best interests of the person.

I'm sure you feel that way, but what's the legitimate difference? It's still holding a person against their will. Ergo kidnapping. By the state. You might even say...state sanctioned kidnapping.

And what about reparations for the victims of the crimes? Say a poor person commits arson against another person's home or business and torches it to the ground. That arsonist will never make enough to pay off that fine, and may not even want to and choose destitution over reparation. After all, what do they have to lose? Three hots and a cot for the rest of their life on that victim's tax dole.