The Death Penalty

[Ocean of Notions]

that could be some good entertainment right there. follow em around with a camera and you got Cops mixed with Die Hard mixed with Judge Judy. may could have a gimmick where the public votes(with text messages at $0.99 a pop) on how brutally or leniently a particular case should be handled. cash in on the whole American Idol fad.

I can see this unfolding. It's like ancient Roman blood sport meets today's technology and tweens with iPhones. Rake in the cash!

[The Evil Hat]

I think that anything that combines three roles into one is saving the tax payers money. Even if that one role is a celebrity-style position that executes the will of the state based on popular whim.

[Ocean of Notions]

I think that anything that combines three roles into one is saving the tax payers money. Even if that one role is a celebrity-style position that executes the will of the state based on popular whim.

We're taking justice to the people.

[turinturambar]

The death penalty is a blatant violation of the right to life, i is inhumane, unethical, falls any kind of standardof decent justice. It's a violation of human rights and an atrocity against common sense.

If there were such a justice system capable of proving a person's guilt of a heinous crime such as raping of children, or murdering of helpless civilians....what makes you think these people would deserve the right to life? Is not "freedom" already a natural human right? Yet people can lose this right by their actions. Why not lose the right to life? I'm sorry, but anybody who performs such acts does not deserve life unless they are kept alive so the state can sodomize them with a splintered broomstick every day for the rest of their god damn lives. OK, so the broomstick may be a slight exaggeration, but the subject touches home to me and no amount of liberal propoganda can or will ever convince me that these masses of carbon deserve to go on wasting perfectly good oxygen.

Human rights can be lost by our actions, I see the right to life as no different. If the crime is extreme enough, then they have forfeited their "right to life".

[MinDonner]

What have you done to my thread?!?!

*shakes fist at chat*

ETA: So, it seems that whatever the philosophical objections, there's pretty much unanimity in the opinion that, as a practical solution, the death penalty is utterly fucked, and the acceptable number of accidental-innocent-execution is 0. So why do countries still use it? I know the board is not the world (we are better than that!) but it's not often that we ALL agree on something. Are the general public really so keen on getting their vengeance that they don't really care about the chances of executing the wrong person?

[Inigima]

You see, most governing bodies don't have their fingers on the pulse of the American public the way we do.

Basically what I'm saying is we're better at public policy than Congress. Of course, so is a... flock? herd? of alpacas.

What do you call a group of alpacas, anyway?

[Andriy Czarchenko]

You see, most governing bodies don't have their fingers on the pulse of the American public the way we do.

Basically what I'm saying is we're better at public policy than Congress. Of course, so is a... flock? herd? of alpacas.

What do you call a group of alpacas, anyway?

Apparently herd.

[Inigima]

Right, thanks. Anyway, we should vote in an all-new alpaca Congress, is my point.

[Greywolf2375]

What have you done to my thread?!?!

*shakes fist at chat*

ETA: So, it seems that whatever the philosophical objections, there's pretty much unanimity in the opinion that, as a practical solution, the death penalty is utterly fucked, and the acceptable number of accidental-innocent-execution is 0. So why do countries still use it? I know the board is not the world (we are better than that!) but it's not often that we ALL agree on something. Are the general public really so keen on getting their vengeance that they don't really care about the chances of executing the wrong person?

Oh I don't know about that.

If HBO can get the rights to some of these celebrity death match like executions & charge $89.95 for 4 hours entertainment, the acceptance of accidental innocent executions will jump dramatically in the 18-49 viewer range.

I just wonder how they will do the under cards for the main event. Will those be the jaywalking leg amputee events?

[The Iceman of the North]

ETA: So, it seems that whatever the philosophical objections, there's pretty much unanimity in the opinion that, as a practical solution, the death penalty is utterly fucked, and the acceptable number of accidental-innocent-execution is 0. So why do countries still use it?

Because they are run by people who care more about mob rule (and thus getting votes) than justice.

I know the board is not the world (we are better than that!) but it's not often that we ALL agree on something. Are the general public really so keen on getting their vengeance that they don't really care about the chances of executing the wrong person?

Yes.

Back on topic. I have to say that the execution methods discussed in this thread so far seem quite primitive. I'd propose the use of ultramodern nuclear ICBM. That is a sure way to reduce the crime level of the area. Some might be concerned about some minor collateral damage, but let's face it those affected are guilty by association. If they aren't criminals, they shouldn't live next door to criminals.

[Inigima]

They're almost certainly guilty of something, anyway. Well known fact.

This would reduce the revenues generated in the pay-per-view market, though. Once you've seen one ICBM explosion, you've pretty much seen them all, haven't you?

Greywolf: It hardly matters who the undercards are. Like other sporting events, concerts, etc. people are pretty much just there to see the main event.

[The Iceman of the North]

This would reduce the revenues generated in the pay-per-view market, though. Once you've seen one ICBM explosion, you've pretty much seen them all, haven't you?

Nah, the debris will be different each time, beside there's all the whimpering vict..., eh surviving criminals on the outskirts of the blast area.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

ETA: So, it seems that whatever the philosophical objections, there's pretty much unanimity in the opinion that, as a practical solution, the death penalty is utterly fucked, and the acceptable number of accidental-innocent-execution is 0. So why do countries still use it? I know the board is not the world (we are better than that!) but it's not often that we ALL agree on something. Are the general public really so keen on getting their vengeance that they don't really care about the chances of executing the wrong person?

Not all.

If you could roll back the clock, I'd be much more likely to oppose the death penalty 30-40 years ago. I think the justice system is better now, and that the addition of DNA evidence really helps. There have been people spend their entire lives in prison based on a flawed conviction, yet we don't abandon imprisonment as an option. I don't think we should abandon the death penalty based solely on the possibility that the wrong person might be executed. Perhaps "up" the standards, have additional review, etc., so as to asbsolutely minimize that possibility.

The truth is that society isn't perfect about anything. Government employees, and even private citizens, die accidental/unjustified deaths due to government action. People die due to industrial accidents, drug reactions, etc., all of which we know going in will happen simply as a matter of statistics. It sounds horrible, but we do make that "how many deaths are acceptable" calculus a lot, even if the public at large doesn't always consider it that way.

[McCloskey]

Not all.

If you could roll back the clock, I'd be much more likely to oppose the death penalty 30-40 years ago. I think the justice system is better now, and that the addition of DNA evidence really helps. There have been people spend their entire lives in prison based on a flawed conviction, yet we don't abandon imprisonment as an option. I don't think we should abandon the death penalty based solely on the possibility that the wrong person might be executed. Perhaps "up" the standards, have additional review, etc., so as to asbsolutely minimize that possibility.

Agreed. When Mitt Romney was Governor in Mass he had a commission look into changing the standards so that he could bring back the death penalty. It ended up fizzling out since it was political posturing and the qualifications for execution became so stringent that it would almost never apply.

[MinDonner]

OK, thank you. It's been an interesting thread, and I'm starting to crystallise a proper opinion out of it. Looks like it's much less easy to separate out the philosophical justification from the practical realities than I initially thought, and it boils down to how many wrongly-executed innocents is acceptable collateral damage for the dubious benefit of also being able to execute some actual murderers. And I'm coming down on the side of saying one is too many.

I see the point about there being plenty of risks in other areas of life, but there are some key differences. One, I like to think morality makes a distiction between accidental deaths and deliberate ones, and two, the risky activity has to contain some major benefits that would balance out the hazards. And in this case I can't believe that "killing murderers to save money/get vengeance/protect society" is sufficient.

[Inigima]

Nah, the debris will be different each time, beside there's all the whimpering vict..., eh surviving criminals on the outskirts of the blast area.

In your estimation, would this have a significant deterrent effect on survivors?

Would the revenues saved from ending imprisonment be sufficient to cover the costs of ICBMs, launchers and cleanup?

Also, ICBMs? We're not talking about state executions overseas, are we?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I see the point about there being plenty of risks in other areas of life, but there are some key differences. One, I like to think morality makes a distiction between accidental deaths and deliberate ones,

Okay, I get that, but I think that line is pretty blurry. The difference between committing an action you know will cause deaths, and actually causing those deaths directly, isn't all that clear.

and two, the risky activity has to contain some major benefits that would balance out the hazards. And in this case I can't believe that "killing murderers to save money/get vengeance/protect society" is sufficient.

Yeah, I think that's the best argument as well. And how you weigh that stuff is tremendously affected by how likely you think wrongful convictions are. I personally think it is an extraordinarily difficult issue and see both sides.

[The_BlauerDragon]

So, it seems that whatever the philosophical objections, there's pretty much unanimity in the opinion that, as a practical solution, the death penalty is utterly fucked, and the acceptable number of accidental-innocent-execution is 0.

Far from unanimous. There are those, such as myself, that might not be speaking out much in this thread because they are tired of trying to explain the many merits of fully utilizing the death penalty. It is a far quicker, more cost efficient, more humane, and more effective means of dealing with those who have committed heinous crimes for which there is very little hope of rehabilitation. I'd say that if the crime is severe (rape, murder, armed robbery, child molestation, etc.) and there is anything more than a 30% chance of repeat offenses, then it would be best to just employ the death penalty and be done with it. As for the innocents, that is going to happen. I'd much rather be executed and later found to be innocent than be locked away for a prolonged period in a prison system that, given a lengthy sentence, could turn even the most innocent man into a monster. If you kill me and later figure out my innocence, then you can clear my name on the record books. If you make me spend 15-20 years living amongst the animals in Hell, rupturing my psyche, and making any chance of me ever resuming a normal life an absolute impossibility... I see that as much, MUCH worse. You do what you can to keep innocent people away from the hangman's noose, but you have to accept that a couple of innocents will still find their way there. It happens.

Are the general public really so keen on getting their vengeance that they don't really care about the chances of executing the wrong person?

Again, must it all be about wrath and vengeance? Really??? Can't it be about justice, humanity, compassion, economy, civility, expediency, and efficiency?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TBD,

You don't place much value on your own life, do you?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I also find listing "efficiency" as an argument in favor of execution is disturbing. The Terror during the French revolution was quite efficient, so were the Nazi death camps, and Pol Pot's killing fields. That doesn't make execution just or proper.

The only time execution should be employed is when there is no doubt and a hih likelihood of repeat offenses.