The Death Penalty

[Datepalm]

Unless the Judge was a committed sadist, like Gregor Clegane or something. Then that doesn't really help you out much.

There was an interesting article someplace about India having a problem with the death penalty - they're having trouble finding people willing to be executioners (literal hangmen, in this instance) despite the decent pay and minimal required skills.

edit: found it.

To kill a man, the Indian Government pays Rs 150. The job of a hangman is not a full-time government post. He is a sanctioned volunteer, his pay a special allowance. Hanging involves techniques and procedures very simple to learn, simpler than probably learning how to drive a car. Senior police officials are willing to teach them to anyone who comes forward, but no one does.

Probably not actually decent pay, but hey, minimal responsibilities. Sounds like the perfect student gig. El-ah, what are you waiting for?

[The Iceman of the North]

No - because without the hypothetical murderers actions, these people would never have been put into the position to have to make that decision.

No, wihtout death penalty on the books they wouldn't be in that position.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I pretty much agree with this. If someone forced me to pick, I'd probably choose 'pro' but I'm more than a little concerned about the system getting it wrong.

The only concern I have is getting it wrong. Other than that, I've got no problem with the concept.

But I really don't like the way we do it. Having executions performed almost in secret -- what the hell's the point of that? I'd prefer public firing squads or hangings. If people change their mind about supporting capital punishment because they're too squeamish about making it public, fine. Then get rid of it. But having it and executing the sentences below the radar pretty clearly is going to destroy whatever deterrent effect it might have because it is too remote to both the population as a whole, and to those who would commit such crimes.

[kungtotte]

Lets say someone commits several horrible crimes. There are multiple DNA hits and clear video images. He confesses and shows no remorse. He is then incarcerated for life, and dies in prison, aged 85.

You know how much money that costs us? I don't, but it will be millions.

You know how much money it costs you to lock people up for bullshit drug-related charges like personal use and small-time growing/distribution of marijuana? If you support the death penalty on financial grounds then I have a better way of cutting costs in the US prison system.

[gladius]

So - for or against? Punishment or deterrent? Eye for an eye versus society's right to eradicate its more troublesome citizens?

Execution of traitors during or immediately after a war - I don't like it, but i can accept it as the best option for the country.

Otherwise i see it as a detrimental exercise in cruelty, and i think the same about prisons. But lowly beings want to satisfy their need for vengeance. There is nothing i can do to change that, so why bother.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

You're cool with execution for something as subjective as being considered a "traitor" but not generally?

[Ser Greguh]

In Junior High, a so-called friend played a prank on me, which led to some public humiliation. I won't go into the details, suffice to say that my humiliation was paid back, and with a bit of interest. It was a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things (and I realize that in a topic discussing the death penalty, it could be taken WAY out of context), but it reinforced a point that puts me at a considerable disagreement with some of the posters here. Why? Because that was an example of revenge, and because it felt fucking great.

Of course, that's a very long ways from the level of revenge involved in taking a human life, but when people start talking in absolutes, extrapolation is inevitable.

The underlying reality is that revenge is neither empty nor meaningless. The insistence that it is strikes me as the same sort of empty moralizing that comes from people who offer platitudes such as "drugs are without value" (even though that is, by very definition, not true, since people pay value for drugs all the time). If revenge were empty, it wouldn't be such a heated topic. There wouldn't be countless films and books that deal with it. There wouldn't be families whose reaction to the execution of a loved one's murderer are ones of relief and a feeling of closure. One individual person might find a specific instance of revenge to be empty, and as a society we might attempt to elevate those instances as the ideal we shoot for, but try as we might, revenge is never going to be something that we can remove from our equation.

I value life, but also think that there are some people on this earth, who do terrible, unforgivable things, who are as rabid dogs and need to be put down. Ugly as it is to type that, I think it's true.

In a perfectly-governed society, that is.

All that said, I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty as it is currently conducted in the United States, only because I don't have the requisite trust in my government to apply a permanent solution to the imperfect art of criminal prosecution. Perhaps that level of trust isn't even possible.

[Hereward]

I'd prefer public firing squads or hangings. If people change their mind about supporting capital punishment because they're too squeamish about making it public, fine. Then get rid of it. But having it and executing the sentences below the radar pretty clearly is going to destroy whatever deterrent effect it might have because it is too remote to both the population as a whole, and to those who would commit such crimes.

Too expensive! Public executions didn't stop, in the UK at least, because people were squeamish. They stopped because they caused a major crowd control problem and major spikes in crime while all the police were trying to keep order at the execution.

TV you say? Having seen the depths of sadistic depravity reality TV is already willing to descend to, the thought of broadcast executions makes me more than a little queasy. :P

[Ser Reptitious]

I am very much against the death penalty, both philosophically and practically. I went round for round in previous incarnations of this thread and (at the moment at least) I don't particularly feel like rehashing all those arguments again.

But one philosophical position that I haven't really seen addressed yet is the idea held by (philosophical) supporters of the death penalty that it constitutes 'the ultimate punishment' (and therefore is most appropriate if you're after revenge). Why is that? Wouldn't incarceration for life (particularly if you are a young person) be a far harsher sentence?

[Blaine]

All that said, I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty as it is currently conducted in the United States, only because I don't have the requisite trust in my government to apply a permanent solution to the imperfect art of criminal prosecution. Perhaps that level of trust isn't even possible.

I agree with pretty much every word of your post, Greguh. It's not a simple issue, but dismissing the human need for revenge is denying human nature itself.

That said, I can't look at cases like that of the West Memphis 3 and not conclude that our system for actually doling out the death penalty is ridiculously fucked.

[Ixodes]

That said, I can't look at cases like that of the West Memphis 3 and not conclude that our system for actually doling out the death penalty is ridiculously fucked.

This. I believe there are crimes where it is OK for the criminal to lose their life. If a criminal is shot and killed while trying to assault someone, I shed no tears. I am happy that Timothy McVeigh can never bomb another building with a daycare. But the judicial system has too many flaws to reliably decide whether a person should die.

The West Memphis 3 is a prime example of how the system can blantantly get it wrong with little or no recourse.

[Greywolf2375]

But one philosophical position that I haven't really seen addressed yet is the idea held by (philosophical) supporters of the death penalty that it constitutes 'the ultimate punishment' (and therefore is most appropriate if you're after revenge). Why is that? Wouldn't incarceration for life (particularly if you are a young person) be a far harsher sentence?

No - from that standpoint that the murderer still has life - incarcerated, but still draws breathe. On top of which, the victims family is now supporting that person - paying for that person to live out the rest of his/her life.

[Chanur]

I am for the death penalty for several reasons. I want that particular brand of crazy removed from the gene pool. 2) I do not want to pay for their medical when they get old. 3) I personally believe death is more humane than life with out the possibility of parole.

[The Iceman of the North]

I am for the death penalty for several reasons. I want that particular brand of crazy removed from the gene pool. 2) I do not want to pay for their medical when they get old. 3) I personally believe death is more humane than life with out the possibility of parole.

So your position is that the children of convicted murderers should be executed as well?

[Guest Raidne]

But one philosophical position that I haven't really seen addressed yet is the idea held by (philosophical) supporters of the death penalty that it constitutes 'the ultimate punishment' (and therefore is most appropriate if you're after revenge). Why is that? Wouldn't incarceration for life (particularly if you are a young person) be a far harsher sentence?

This is one of those arguments that people either find persausive on its face, or don't. For my part, I disagree. It's a rare death row inmate who's thrilled to finally have the sentence carried out. And people who *are* at liberty to kill themselves in helpless, soul-crushing situations don't, all the time. Auschwitz, for example. People seek life, any kind of life. Death is a worse punishment, barring, you know, eternal horrific torture and all that cruel and unusual stuff.

Again, I don't support the death penalty on practical or philosophical grounds, however.

[Shryke]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05bar.html?_r=1

From earlier this year:

Last fall, the American Law Institute, which created the intellectual framework for the modern capital justice system almost 50 years ago, pronounced its project a failure and walked away from it.

The institute is made up of about 4,000 judges, lawyers and law professors. It synthesizes and shapes the law in restatements and model codes that provide structure and coherence in a federal legal system that might otherwise consist of 50 different approaches to everything.

In 1962, as part of the Model Penal Code, the institute created the modern framework for the death penalty, one the Supreme Court largely adopted when it reinstituted capital punishment in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976. Several justices cited the standards the institute had developed as a model to be emulated by the states.

The institute’s recent decision to abandon the field was a compromise. Some members had asked the institute to take a stand against the death penalty as such. That effort failed.

Instead, the institute voted in October to disavow the structure it had created “in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.”

That last sentence contains some pretty dense lawyer talk, but it can be untangled. What the institute was saying is that the capital justice system in the United States is irretrievably broken.

[Spastic Plastic]

I'm against the death penalty in every way. It's not just imperfect, but a remnant of torches-and-pitchforks medieval times. I'm actually not against the death penalty being used on serial killers and child rapists, but those should be really, really special cases. A few exceptions, rather than the rule.

Oh, and El-Ahrairah should definitely be an executioner, and Former Lord of Winterfell can watch it and jerk off all he wants.

[Guest Raidne]

Shryke, additionally, the MPC still comprises the major part of many law students first year criminal law courses, along with the majority rule common law.

Also, I'm not sure it's really their place to be for or against the death penalty.

Their job is to write clear and efficient rules that can be adopted to promote better law as law, not as policy. Like, making sure the distinctions are clear, the tests can be followed, etc. So what they're saying is that the executive branches around the country, at the federal and state level, have so made a hash of things that it is now impossible to write anything that will actually efficiently promote justice.

It's not a legal failure - it's an executive failure. That's how I interpret that statement.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Too expensive! Public executions didn't stop, in the UK at least, because people were squeamish. They stopped because they caused a major crowd control problem and major spikes in crime while all the police were trying to keep order at the execution.

Arm the crowd control cops with live bullets, and you solve the yob problem at the same time.

Seriously, that's a good point, but I'm not sure if that would happen here. Hey, maybe the place to do it is in prison courtyards. Let all the bastards in there know there is an ultimate price to pay if they decide to kill someone when they get out. Warn the people who really need the warning.

[Guest Raidne]

Arm the crowd control cops with live bullets, and you solve the yob problem at the same time.

While I think my Dad's jokes about prison costs ("lower fences, better sharpshooters!") are arguably sort of funny, I'm sure you're aware that this is how nearly every major incident of police brutality against a crowd has ever occurred, including those that led to major world-changing revolutions, like the Boston Massacre (American Revolution) and Bloody Sunday (Communist Revolution).

So, I guess I think it's kind of stupid joke.