NATION

PASSWORD

Should the death penalty's "appeals process" be scrapped?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Senator
 
Posts: 4364
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Should the death penalty's "appeals process" be scrapped?

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:36 am

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... lann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

User avatar
Vistulange
Senator
 
Posts: 3842
Founded: May 13, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Vistulange » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:44 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.
Turkish-Canadian, atheist, social democrat and Neo-Kemalist. Working on Turkish and Israeli politics, democratisation and democratic backsliding, authoritarianism, civil-military relations, and nation-building. Also learning Hebrew.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk wrote:The truest mentor in life is science. To seek mentors other than science is blindness, ignorance, and an aberration.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk wrote:Our program for governance is the CHP program. The principles this encompasses are what enlighten us in administration and governance. However, these principles should not be confused with the dogmas of books that are said to come from the heavens. We take our inspiration not from the heavenly and the otherworldly, but directly from life itself.

User avatar
The Greater Ohio Valley
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6113
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Greater Ohio Valley » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:45 am

Vistulange wrote:
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head for what I think.
28 year old pansexual H. sapien male who likes naps, Stellaris and the PS1-era Resident Evil games.
Hey, it’s up to us to take our Umbrella.
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.1

PRO:
- Free speech
- Democracy
- Weapons Rights
- LGBTQ+ Rights
- Due Process
- Religious Freedom
- Choice
- Gender & Sexual Equality
- Racial Equality
- Workers Rights
- Universal Healthcare
- Secularism
ANTI:
- Fascism/Nazism
- Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism
- Racism
- Sexism
- Xenophobia
- Homophobia
- Transphobia
- Ethno-nationalism
- Nationalism
- Racial Supremacy
- Conservatism
- Traditionalism
- Religious Extremism
- Laissez-faire capitalism
- Antivaxx
- Theocracy

Liriena wrote:anyone to the left of Pinochet: *exists*

right-wingers: wat about vuvuzelaaa lmao gottem

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Senator
 
Posts: 4364
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:46 am

Vistulange wrote:
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)

You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

User avatar
Page
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12382
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:48 am

The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.
All about dat FREE stuff: FREE hotel rooms for immigrants - FREE health care - FREE speech - FREE Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." - Noam Chomsky

Protect yourself from Covid-19: Stop licking boots.

User avatar
The Greater Ohio Valley
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6113
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Greater Ohio Valley » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:49 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Vistulange wrote:You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?

I’d rather they not be dead, I’d also rather we made life for convicted felons easier once they get out of prison so as to make their transition back into society easier and decrease their chances of recidivism.
28 year old pansexual H. sapien male who likes naps, Stellaris and the PS1-era Resident Evil games.
Hey, it’s up to us to take our Umbrella.
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.1

PRO:
- Free speech
- Democracy
- Weapons Rights
- LGBTQ+ Rights
- Due Process
- Religious Freedom
- Choice
- Gender & Sexual Equality
- Racial Equality
- Workers Rights
- Universal Healthcare
- Secularism
ANTI:
- Fascism/Nazism
- Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism
- Racism
- Sexism
- Xenophobia
- Homophobia
- Transphobia
- Ethno-nationalism
- Nationalism
- Racial Supremacy
- Conservatism
- Traditionalism
- Religious Extremism
- Laissez-faire capitalism
- Antivaxx
- Theocracy

Liriena wrote:anyone to the left of Pinochet: *exists*

right-wingers: wat about vuvuzelaaa lmao gottem

User avatar
Page
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12382
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:49 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Vistulange wrote:You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.

Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?


False dichotomy, not only do we not have to kill people, we don't have to do any of those things either.
All about dat FREE stuff: FREE hotel rooms for immigrants - FREE health care - FREE speech - FREE Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." - Noam Chomsky

Protect yourself from Covid-19: Stop licking boots.

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Senator
 
Posts: 4364
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:57 am

Page wrote:The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.

Norway got there by having a unionized work force and therefore good enough working conditions that people feel less need to resort to crime. I admire what they've achieved, and all countries should strive to imitate it, but if we reduce deterrence before we get there, we have no way of knowing how many more people would resort to crime without fear holding them back.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

User avatar
Gormwood
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14733
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Gormwood » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:14 am

Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.
Bloodthirsty savages who call for violence against the Right while simultaneously being unarmed defenseless sissies who will get slaughtered by the gun-toting Right in a civil war.
Breath So Bad, It Actually Drives People Mad

User avatar
Nobel Hobos 2
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10383
Founded: Dec 04, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:19 am

The death penalty should be abolished.

Abolishing the appeals process would taint executions with the possibility of the accused being innocent after all. In a few cases they'd even be demonstrated innocent in the time after their execution, when they would otherwise have been alive and appealing.

It's an accelerationist argument, and those generally go wrong. But there it is. No appeals would make execution less attractive to the public, possibly, leading to the sooner abolition of the death penalty.
Also, AiliAiliA
No footwear industry: citizens cannot afford new shoes.
High rate of Nobel prizes and other academic achievements.

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Senator
 
Posts: 4364
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:20 am

Gormwood wrote:Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.

People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?
Last edited by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha on Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

User avatar
Thepeopl
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1561
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:22 am

:?:
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Page wrote:The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.

Norway got there by having a unionized work force and therefore good enough working conditions that people feel less need to resort to crime. I admire what they've achieved, and all countries should strive to imitate it, but if we reduce deterrence before we get there, we have no way of knowing how many more people would resort to crime without fear holding them back.

Death penalty, harsh punishment doesn't deter murderers, criminals or conmen.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-02- ... 16030?nw=0

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and- ... lty-states

Yes death penalty appeal should be scrapped. Easiest way of doing that is scrapping the death penalty.

Death row is very expensive. You could use that money to resocialize convicts. Let them train social help dogs, who can open fridges, help with laundry etc for disabled people. Training dogs has proven to be beneficial to convicts and brings down aggression in prisons.
https://can-do-canines.org/our-dogs/prison-program/
Last edited by Thepeopl on Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17268
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:27 am

You will never be able to convince me that life without the possibility of parole is a less cruel sentence than "you shall be taken from this place and hanged". However, either way, we should be sure that we're being a prick to the right person so... no, appeals shouldn't be scrapped in death penalty cases.

(I would suggest death penalties apply only in cases with exceedingly clear evidence and/or confessions. That last point probably sounds bizarre but, remember, I hold life sentences to be infinitely more fucked up than death sentences.

I suspect most anti death penalty advocates wouldn't have too many problems with abolishing life sentences either.)
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 141504
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ifreann » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:29 am

Prison is bad, therefore the state should have far greater power to kill people it doesn't like. Strange, strange reasoning.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Regular Thorough Handwashing For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Mask Wearing That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Social Distancing
He/Him

You've got a lonesome road to walk, and it ain't along the railroad track, and it ain't along the black-top tar you walked a hundred times before.
I'll tell you where the real road lies: between your ears, behind your eyes. That is the path to paradise, likewise the road to ruin.

User avatar
Nobel Hobos 2
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10383
Founded: Dec 04, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:31 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Gormwood wrote:Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.

People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?


Well making it more expensive for the State makes it sought "more sparingly". The delay might also make it less satisfying for ... everyone who is in favor of it. Making it also less sought.
Also, AiliAiliA
No footwear industry: citizens cannot afford new shoes.
High rate of Nobel prizes and other academic achievements.

User avatar
The Two Jerseys
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14842
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Two Jerseys » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:32 am

No, everyone is entitled to an appeal.

But we should limit the number of appeals they can file so that they can't just keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks. One appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, that's all they should get.
"The Duke of Texas" is too formal for regular use. Just call me "Your Grace".
"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor
"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia
Head of State: HM King Louis
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime Minister
Ambassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.
Join Excalibur Squadron. We're Commandos who fly Spitfires. Chicks dig Commandos who fly Spitfires.

User avatar
Nobel Hobos 2
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10383
Founded: Dec 04, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:33 am

I think death "penalty" without appeal should be an option for any prisoner given a long sentence.

Reducing the rate of prison suicides would focus more attention on those that are really murders.
Also, AiliAiliA
No footwear industry: citizens cannot afford new shoes.
High rate of Nobel prizes and other academic achievements.

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Senator
 
Posts: 4364
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:35 am

Forsher wrote:You will never be able to convince me that life without the possibility of parole is a less cruel sentence than "you shall be taken from this place and hanged". However, either way, we should be sure that we're being a prick to the right person so... no, appeals shouldn't be scrapped in death penalty cases.

(I would suggest death penalties apply only in cases with exceedingly clear evidence and/or confessions. That last point probably sounds bizarre but, remember, I hold life sentences to be infinitely more fucked up than death sentences.

I suspect most anti death penalty advocates wouldn't have too many problems with abolishing life sentences either.)

Actually, the most popular alternative to the death penalty is "life without parole." Not that anyone who gets parole; or anyone who gets let out because their sentence "wasn't" a life sentence; is going to qualify for a job or welfare. The public denied them those things of its own accord. So every prison sentence essentially is a life sentence, be it for a decade or for half a month.

That said, I'd be wary of a confession exception. Prisoners can falsely confess if they expect more leniency than if they were falsely convicted anyway. That sounds less like a way to deter criminals and more like a means to silence falsely-confessing prisoners before they can tell other prisoners that's what they did.
Last edited by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha on Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Senator
 
Posts: 4364
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:41 am

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?


Well making it more expensive for the State makes it sought "more sparingly". The delay might also make it less satisfying for ... everyone who is in favor of it. Making it also less sought.

I mean provisions that it be used only on cases where you have reason to believe there is actually deterrence value. Deterrence is hard to prove or disprove generally, but that doesn't mean you can't have reason to suspect that, let's say, some criminal those who would thrive in prison seek to imitate, has more reason to be executed than, let's say, someone who you know is going to be the bottom of even criminals' social pecking order and therefore is already being made an example of anyway.

Right now the key factor in execution isn't how much of a deterrence message an individual's execution would send but how badly the public wants them to be executed. The same public, of course, that refuses to provide jobs or welfare to ex-convicts.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.

How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

User avatar
Vassenor
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52912
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:44 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.

As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?

The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)


Here's the thing though. While theoretically the shorter delay between sentence being passed and carried out is supposed to improve the deterrent effect, supposedly to the tune of one less murder for every 2.75 years the gap is reduced by, (Shepherd, 2004) in practice it doesn't really seem work that way. Heck, even as far back as the 1970s there was some debate about whether capital punishment in and of itself was a deterrent against crime (Ehrlich, 1973, Passel and Taylor, 1977).

There's also the argument to be made that in order for capital punishment to be effective as a deterrent, it must be the mandatory sentence for a given offence, rather than only being given out when sufficient aggravating factors are present (Donohue and Wolfers, 2006).

Sources:

Shepherd J M (2004) Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment in The Journal of Legal Studies Vol 33(2) pp.283-321

Ehrlich I (1973) The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death - https://www.nber.org/papers/w0018

Passell P and Taylor JB (1977) The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Another View - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... 1.335.1428

Donohue JJ and Wolfers J (2006) Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate - https://www.nber.org/papers/w11982
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Team Mystic
#iamEUropean

User avatar
Sundiata
Minister
 
Posts: 2939
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:45 am

Honestly, the death penalty should be scrapped. It's an egregious assault on the dignity of human beings. The state should not deal in death.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Gravlen
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13117
Founded: Jul 01, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Gravlen » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:45 am

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/

So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals?

I agree, the prison condition in the US is unacceptable. Is your solution to do away with prisons entirely?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?

That makes no sense. Do you labor under the delusion that trial judges aren't told to get it right?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes.

No, the point of the death penalty is to kill the person.

No really. That's the point of it. It's not about deterrence, it's about elimination.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all?

Yep, there should be no death penalty at all.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.

That has nothing to do with appeals, which is what you claim to be the main topic of your thread, but... swell?
EnragedMaldivians wrote:That's preposterous. Gravlens's not a white nationalist; Gravlen's a penguin.

Unio de Sovetaj Socialismaj Respublikoj wrote:There is no use arguing the definition of murder with someone who has a picture of a penguin with a chainsaw as their nations flag.

User avatar
Thepeopl
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1561
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:01 am

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nor ... &r=US&IR=T

See, no life imprisonment unless you are not rehabilitated. Then you are in prison until death.

No death penalty, no harsh punishment.
Woodworking, recording studios, courses to prepare inmates to participate in society.

User avatar
Glorious Hong Kong
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 386
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glorious Hong Kong » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:03 am

If there is absolutely no doubt as to Dylann Roof's guilt and motives, then what is the point of having an appeals process? And what's all this nonsense about lethal injections and "humane" executions? Just take him out to a field and execute him the same way his victims died, in a hail of bullets at the hands of a firing squad.

I do think an appeals process is absolutely appropriate for cases where there is reasonable doubt. This is not one of those cases. I don't think the appeals process should be scrapped just because the prison system is broken and as a result, more men than women are raped in the United States while woke feminists such as Sharon Osbourne and Big Red who claim to be in favor of "gender equality" laugh and joke about it.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22132
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:09 am

Well, yes, obviously. Along with the death penalty. Because that's the only option that doesn't end with state-sanctioned killings of innocent people.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alcala-Cordel, Andsed, Benuty, Bienenhalde, Cekoviu, Dominioan, Europe - Prussia, Greater Miami Shores, Haruhi Japan, Heloin, Linguai, Majestic-12 [Bot], Monsone, Neanderthaland, Necroghastia, Neos Realm, Nilrahrarfan, Norastan, Saint Cinder, Salus Maior, Souseiseki, Strazhnist Tsarus, Subterran, The Rich Port, Western Fardelshufflestein

Advertisement

Remove ads