The Death Penalty

[Trollheart]

Let's go then. We've all seen reports of crimes which are so heinous that we must have thought (I know I did) that guy/girl should have been put to death. Is there a case for the death penalty being brought back (assuming it's not already in your country/state) for certain crimes? It may not bring back the victims but surely in certain cases it can prevent further ones falling to the killer/rapist/whatever? I know it's a thorny issue, and that's why I thought after reading this that it might be a subject worth discussing. Is jail, no matter how long, good enough in this case? I'm certain there are others, but this one seems so damned evil that even rotting in jail for the rest of their lives seems poor punishment.

Man and woman jailed after rape and abuse of their children

[jimmy jazz]

Let's go then. We've all seen reports of crimes which are so heinous that we must have thought (I know I did) that guy/girl should have been put to death. Is there a case for the death penalty being brought back (assuming it's not already in your country/state) for certain crimes? It may not bring back the victims but surely in certain cases it can prevent further ones falling to the killer/rapist/whatever? I know it's a thorny issue, and that's why I thought after reading this that it might be a subject worth discussing. Is jail, no matter how long, good enough in this case? I'm certain there are others, but this one seems so damned evil that even rotting in jail for the rest of their lives seems poor punishment.

Man and woman jailed after rape and abuse of their children

I believe prison can do this also?

I'm against the death penalty, for a number of reasons. Miscarriages of justice being a big one and also I don't think the state should kill anyone.

[Jwb]

I would be fine with the state killing those people if they did what they are accused of.  But you never know,  maybe they're innocent!

[Trollheart]

What do you mean? There's no such thing as a miscarriage of justice!  Oh, you must mean when the judge gets on the wrong bus!

Seriously, of course Irish people have been on the wrong end of British justice - Birmingham Six, Guildford Four etc - and you can't exactly say sorry if someone's been executed. But in cases where the guilt is either without question or a confession has been made, and the crime is evil enough, maybe. I don't know myself: obviously there are serious issues to be addressed, but when you think of some of the people imprisoned today in places that are, well, not exactly hell-holes, and how you struggle to call that justice... I don't know.

[Jwb]

I think my attitude is similar to yours.  Like I have no real moral problem with them executing let's say Saddam Hussein because it's pretty clear he's guilty of more than enough to be deserving of death.  I assume it's just not that easy or plausible to come up with a way to allow the death penalty only in cases that leave no reasonable room for doubt.  Like I can look at an individual case like Dylan roof and say they got him on video leaving,  he confessed, etc.  It seems clear as day to me he did it and I would bet my life on it.  I just dunno how you could objectively judge which cases fall into that category.  And the way our justice system functions,  it has to be somewhat impersonal and governed by rules that apply to everyone. I'm just not so sure which criteria I could construct which would reliably distinguish criminals who I am fine with killing vs those I'm not.

[Guybrush]

Death penalty, to me, is a very difficult moral dilemma. I generally don't think the state should kill, but I can see various arguments both for and against.

I think we have a good example of when death penalty could have had the most desirable consequences here in Norway when Anders Behring Breivik exploded a bomb in Oslo in 2012 and then proceeded to attack the Worker's Youth Leage summer camp. He killed 69 people in total, 33 of them under the age of 18. It was heinous and has tragically touched the lives of many people. There's no doubt about who did it. Keeping him facilitated and the constant work for the courts with their lawyers etc. is costly. Needless to say, the Norwegian law, penal and court systems had never seen anything like this before and were not prepared beforehand on how to deal with it. It is based on rehabilitation and is relatively lenient on punishment, but the idea of ABB ever being back on the streets makes the mind reel. If someone's killed 70 people and blew things up, I'd say it's extremely unlikely they could ever rehabilitate and they should not suddenly be back walking the streets one day. You could argue that if the Norwegian state had just executed ABB, it would've been cheaper and less work and perhaps would've brought a sense of justice and closure to many people. It might have been preferable even to ABB - who knows? He was on a suicide mission and prepared to "die by cop".

But put into system, you of course run the risk of executing innocent people and it can be used as an extreme tool of oppression. We might all feel a little safer if we agree it's a power the state should not have over its citizens, inside the penal system or elsewhere. I also think death penalty, even when applied in a way that may be considered "right", may be or should be less about the criminals and more about us and the values that we want to uphold and the consequences that derive from that. I think abolishing violence and valuing human lives is very valuable to society and important steps towards creating a society where a death penalty is not needed because people, despite having the opportunity to do so, do not opt for violence and murder. This is the sort of society I'd like to be a part of - a society where people are not criminal - not because they're scared or forced away from it, but because there's no need to and it just doesn't figure to them. They don't choose criminality and they believe that violence and murder is wrong. In order to get there, I do believe the state should strive to present as somewhat of a paragon in terms of these values.

Cases like ABB will come and test the system. Keeping them alive is part of the cost of upholding the aforementioned values. I generally think it's worth it, but I can imagine far more violent societies (perhaps in our distant past) where a system incorporating death penalty would probably have the best consequences.

[Psy-Fi]

Having the death penalty for the most heinous and depraved murderers, doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as there is 100% certainty that the convicted murderer was guilty of committing the crime.

[Trollheart]

Tore makes a great point about ABB. Someone like that is never going to rehabilitate, and if they should somehow ever get out (whether that's parole, liberal "bleeding hearts and artists", to quote Roger, or escape, the chances are he would kill again. There have been countless, sadly, cases of men (mostly I guess men) being either released on parole or let out early who killed again. You can't use a three-strikes system of course - you've killed twice, now don't do it again or we'll kill  you - but in cases where the guilt has been satisfactorily established or a confession is obtained, maybe a panel could be convened to look at all the evidence and see if there is in fact any room for doubt. If there isn't, and no remorse has been shown, then if the likelihood of them re-offending is high, it might be an argument for, as Spock says, the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one. Nobody wants anyone executed in error, but if you think of all those who have died, been raped, abused etc by men who were back out on the streets when they should not have been...

[Rubber Soul]

There are so many things to look at when it comes to the death penalty. In the US, even in the red states where it remains popular, the condemned is entitled to appeals that can last for years. To say the least, that's a fairly costly process.


I personally oppose the death penalty for three reasons really. For one, who are we to say who lives and who dies? Like Tore says, it's a moral dilemma. For two, what if we end up killing the wrong person? At least if he/she is in prison, it can be rectified somewhat. You can't bring someone back from the dead.

And, finally, there is the thought that maybe you're not really punishing the condemned at all, just putting him out of his misery. When Maryland had the death penalty (rarely used but used nonetheless), there was a character named John Thanos, who brutally murdered a family on the Eastern Shore just so he could be put to death. Essentially, it was suicide by mass murder but even that took years until the execution took place, Maryland being a state not really into the death penalty (since repealed), and the appeals being automatic despite the protests from Thanos.

Anyway, unless you live in Texas or Florida, it isn't easy getting executed.

[jimmy jazz]

I would be fine with the state killing those people if they did what they are accused of.  But you never know,  maybe they're innocent!

Well some of them are innocent.

The Birmingham Six would all be dead if we had the death penalty.

[Trollheart]

And the Guildford Four. All very true.
But then take the Yorkshire Ripper. A man of no morals whatever, who does not in any way regret his crimes and if let out would do the same thing most likely. Is it right that he puts the burden of keeping him alive on the British taxpayer?

There's a line in one of Dean Koontz's novels (yes I know it's fiction but there's a kernel of truth here) where a father, a convicted serial killer, ruminates to his son about what will happen if he goes back to prison. "I'll probably paint a little, read, maybe get involved in some other hobby. Maybe be released from time to time to help the police with this or that case (you'd have to read the book to understand, but kind of think of a Hannibal Lecter sort of deal) and catch up on my writing." I mean, yes again I know it's fiction but it hardly sounds like punishment, does it? (In case you're wondering, the son shoots him dead).

I would of course be singing a different tune if I had been framed for murder and knew I was innocent, and there are no doubt thousands or even hundreds of thousands of innocent men and women in prisons all over the world, but there are also ones which are clearly guilty and have no remorse. It's however a good point Rubber Soul makes, that if you're just granting the request of the prisoner, is it even then punishment? Look at Gary Gilmore.

[jimmy jazz]

Peter Sutcliffe is dead now, died a while back, think it was from Covid. But I take your point.

Is it right, well I'd rather pay for his upkeep than have someone innocent killed. There's no point saying "well what if you had 100% proof" because people in charge could still make mistakes and I don't trust it to not be abused at some point.

[Toy Revolver]

Death penalty, to me, is a very difficult moral dilemma. I generally don't think the state should kill, but I can see various arguments both for and against.

I think we have a good example of when death penalty could have had the most desirable consequences here in Norway when Anders Behring Breivik exploded a bomb in Oslo in 2012 and then proceeded to attack the Worker's Youth Leage summer camp. He killed 69 people in total, 33 of them under the age of 18. It was heinous and has tragically touched the lives of many people. There's no doubt about who did it. Keeping him facilitated and the constant work for the courts with their lawyers etc. is costly. Needless to say, the Norwegian law, penal and court systems had never seen anything like this before and were not prepared beforehand on how to deal with it. It is based on rehabilitation and is relatively lenient on punishment, but the idea of ABB ever being back on the streets makes the mind reel. If someone's killed 70 people and blew things up, I'd say it's extremely unlikely they could ever rehabilitate and they should not suddenly be back walking the streets one day. You could argue that if the Norwegian state had just executed ABB, it would've been cheaper and less work and perhaps would've brought a sense of justice and closure to many people. It might have been preferable even to ABB - who knows? He was on a suicide mission and prepared to "die by cop".

But put into system, you of course run the risk of executing innocent people and it can be used as an extreme tool of oppression. We might all feel a little safer if we agree it's a power the state should not have over its citizens, inside the penal system or elsewhere. I also think death penalty, even when applied in a way that may be considered "right", may be or should be less about the criminals and more about us and the values that we want to uphold and the consequences that derive from that. I think abolishing violence and valuing human lives is very valuable to society and important steps towards creating a society where a death penalty is not needed because people, despite having the opportunity to do so, do not opt for violence and murder. This is the sort of society I'd like to be a part of - a society where people are not criminal - not because they're scared or forced away from it, but because there's no need to and it just doesn't figure to them. They don't choose criminality and they believe that violence and murder is wrong. In order to get there, I do believe the state should strive to present as somewhat of a paragon in terms of these values.

Cases like ABB will come and test the system. Keeping them alive is part of the cost of upholding the aforementioned values. I generally think it's worth it, but I can imagine far more violent societies (perhaps in our distant past) where a system incorporating death penalty would probably have the best consequences.

norway does a good job of protecting the public while minimizing human suffering of the incarcerated which minimizes the amount of human suffering in total which is a pretty good metric that indicates your country is doing a good job - nothing is perfect

in america i'm officially against the death penalty but it's a low priority compared to prison reform in general and seeing to it that the poor have equal access to justice from arrest to sentencing to time spent incarcerated

but when florida executes someone i generally don't care

in alabama they mess it up half the time

the electric chair, lethal injection, and the gas chamber are all stupidly complicated

a simple hanging is fine or if the person prefers an OUTDOOR firing squad - they actually use rifles to kill people tied to chairs infoors - that strikes me as very poor taste from a theatrical pov

i support public executions mainly because i think it would be very entertaining but faucault argued convincingly that doing it publicly delegitimizes the state and encourages insurrection

many people in american prisons want to die and suicide watch is a big part of the incarceration budget

at least let them have their way -

[Psy-Fi]

[Toy Revolver]

he died in 2008

wow his stuff is aging well