Capital punishment at crossroads in US

[Foxfyre]

Yes lets lock up murderers that know they can never be put to death for any reason. I nominate YOU as the cell block guard.

If there is nothing more than life imprisonment as a consequence of law breaking, what incentive does a lifer have to not do the worst evil he can devise? There should be a final solution for the most unconsionable of crimes.

 

[Diuretic]

If there is nothing more than life imprisonment as a consequence of law breaking, what incentive does a lifer have to not do the worst evil he can devise? There should be a final solution for the most unconsionable of crimes.

I think you might find that you and RGS are in agreement, I read RGS as putting the view that prisoners in for natural life are going to be intractable and difficult to handle and that Toro should be in the job of trying to handle them.

But if I'm correct that fails to allow for the fact that lifers are managed quite well. I get back to my urging against those who would deny lifers reasonable comforts, that would make the custodial work very difficult and dangerous.

On the final solution, much opposition has been expressed to it here on the basis of mistake. I've asked this before....who wants to volunteer to be the only innocent person executed for murder?

Oh and welcome to USMB

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you might find that you and RGS are in agreement, I read RGS as putting the view that prisoners in for natural life are going to be intractable and difficult to handle and that Toro should be in the job of trying to handle them.

But if I'm correct that fails to allow for the fact that lifers are managed quite well. I get back to my urging against those who would deny lifers reasonable comforts, that would make the custodial work very difficult and dangerous.

On the final solution, much opposition has been expressed to it here on the basis of mistake. I've asked this before....who wants to volunteer to be the only innocent person executed for murder?

Oh and welcome to USMB

Yes, I agree that RGS and I are probably mostly in agreement on the issue of the death penalty. The way I look at it, there should be appropriate, lawfully prescribed penalties assigned for violating the law. A $10 fine for jaywalking encourages most people to use the safer crosswalk; a $100 fine for speeding in a school zone plus points is a strong incentive for most people to maintain the posted speed and not endanger children. Grand theft auto or a bank robbery certainly does not merit life imprisonment but some jail time is warranted. Then you have kidnapping and murder that do warrant long prison sentences and/or life imprisonment with no hope of parole. I think it would be hard to say how many are deterred from committing such crimes by the promise of such sentences.

And finally there should be an ultimate penalty for those crimes that are so horrendous, so brutal, so hideous, so unconsionably indefensible that a person should forfeit his/her right to life. Otherwise there is no incentive not to kill or inflict as much pain and suffering as possible on the victim. There is no incentive to not kill in prison or after one escapes. The death penalty should be applicable only on cases where there is little or no chance that the innocent has been convicted.

And none of this suggests that any person be treated inhumanely. "Reasonable comforts" could be a matter for further debate as 'reasonable' is likely in the eye of the beholder.

And thank you for a warm welcome. I'm pleased to be here.

 

[AllieBaba]

The state has always had the authority to kill, why should it not? A state without authority isn't a state at all.

 

[Toro]

Yes, I agree that RGS and I are probably mostly in agreement on the issue of the death penalty. The way I look at it, there should be appropriate, lawfully prescribed penalties assigned for violating the law. A $10 fine for jaywalking encourages most people to use the safer crosswalk; a $100 fine for speeding in a school zone plus points is a strong incentive for most people to maintain the posted speed and not endanger children. Grand theft auto or a bank robbery certainly does not merit life imprisonment but some jail time is warranted. Then you have kidnapping and murder that do warrant long prison sentences and/or life imprisonment with no hope of parole. I think it would be hard to say how many are deterred from committing such crimes by the promise of such sentences.

And finally there should be an ultimate penalty for those crimes that are so horrendous, so brutal, so hideous, so unconsionably indefensible that a person should forfeit his/her right to life. Otherwise there is no incentive not to kill or inflict as much pain and suffering as possible on the victim. There is no incentive to not kill in prison or after one escapes. The death penalty should be applicable only on cases where there is little or no chance that the innocent has been convicted.

And none of this suggests that any person be treated inhumanely. "Reasonable comforts" could be a matter for further debate as 'reasonable' is likely in the eye of the beholder.

And thank you for a warm welcome. I'm pleased to be here.

There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent, though Foxfyre.

 

[Toro]

The state has always had the authority to kill, why should it not? A state without authority isn't a state at all.

The state also has the authority to lop off hands and feet in some countries, and has even sanctioned rape. In the past, the state sanctioned the denial of human rights through legalizing slavery.

The fact that the state has so much power over the person of an individual should make anyone who believes in liberty and freedom want to restrict that power as much as possible.

 

[AllieBaba]

However, that isn't our state. We are lucky to live in a state where that doesn't happen.

And I don't see it happening any time soon. We've always had capital punishment. I think it's rather hysterical to imply that it will lead downhill to anarchy/tyranny at this point in the game.

Furthermore, I don't see the government acting upon the public's wish to have the death penalty to protect the populace is an example of the government overstepping its boundaries. I think when we have nonsense laws which restrict the liberties of law-abiding citizens...i.e., laws which state where we can and can't smoke, laws which dictate we must wear seatbelts, and laws which tell us what we may do with our own property, are better examples of the downward spiral to tyranny and injustice.

The government doesn't exist to protect us from ourselves.

 

[Diuretic]

The state has always had the authority to kill, why should it not? A state without authority isn't a state at all.

From where does the state get that authority?

 

[AllieBaba]

In this country, it gets the authority from the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent, though Foxfyre.

It is absolutely a deterrent when it prevents beyond any doubt a sadistic killer's ability to kill again.

And since there is no data of any kind on whether people have refrained from crimes worthy of the death penalty in order to avoid such death penalty, we can't know whether it is a deterrent can we? There is no evidence that it is. Likewise there is no evidence that it isn't.

Also we haven't really tried the death penalty for a very long time. I think it quite likely that some risk the death penalty knowing that it will be a decade or more before all their appeals are exhausted and they have a good chance that the law will change or the governor will commute their sentence. What if the death penalty was applied only in cases of the most heinous crimes and when there was no doubt of guilt? And the execution was six months after the sentence? That should be plenty of time for lawyers to review the trial transcript to determine if there were any serious irregularities. I think if this was the policy, we might soon have data showing the death penalty to be a deterrent.

Again no fine, jail sentence, or the death penalty should be considered revenge or even punishment. Whatever penalty is imposed should be a lawfully established consequences for breaking the law. And there are some crimes so savage and so viscious that the death penalty should be a lawfully established consequence.

 

[AllieBaba]

The death penalty, in the states that use it, IS used for only the most heinous.

 

[Toro]

It is absolutely a deterrent when it prevents beyond any doubt a sadistic killer's ability to kill again.

There is no evidence the death penalty is a deterrent.

http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol3/iss5/art3/

 

[Foxfyre]

As I said previously, we haven't tried the death penalty for a very long time. That has to be factored into the mix.

And perhaps you can argue against the logic that an executed killer will never kill again. That, by my definition, is a deterrent.

 

[Diuretic]

In this country, it gets the authority from the people.

So if the people (ie the majority) are okay with execution that makes it lawful, as in that it's in accordance with the law.

 

[Diuretic]

As I said previously, we haven't tried the death penalty for a very long time. That has to be factored into the mix.

And perhaps you can argue against the logic that an executed killer will never kill again. That, by my definition, is a deterrent.

Problem there is the number of assumptions you've made in your own cause.

The argument is that the "killer" may not in fact be a "killer".

So your logic then becomes, "an executed person will never kill again". And I find myself in agreement with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Problem there is the number of assumptions you've made in your own cause.

The argument is that the "killer" may not in fact be a "killer".

So your logic then becomes, "an executed person will never kill again". And I find myself in agreement with you.

I would hope with scientific verification techniques available to us in these times along with meticulous attention to fine points of law and admissable evidence, the likelihood of executing an innocent man/woman is miniscule. I would hope that the evidence would be irrefutable before a death penalty would be ordered by the judge.

There is something to be said for the argument that it be better for 100 guilty go free than one innocent person be imprisoned or put to death. That is all well and good considering the fallibility of human reason and ability; yet there is also the consideration of the countless potential victims put at risk when we refuse to convict the guilty out of some fuzzy socialistic notions of rehabilitation and/or concepts of judgmentalism.

If there is no consequence for breaking the law there is no logical reason to have laws intended to protect and preserve life, peace, prosperity, promotion of the common welfare, etc.

 

[AllieBaba]

I would sacrifice myself to keep 100 guilty people from going free in death penalty cases.

In my case, I think it's better to sacrifice the occasional innocent person if it means 100 guilty people get fried. (For murder...not for theft, or habitual petty crime).

 

[mattskramer]

I would sacrifice myself to keep 100 guilty people from going free in death penalty cases.

In my case, I think it's better to sacrifice the occasional innocent person if it means 100 guilty people get fried. (For murder...not for theft, or habitual petty crime).

Wow. I hope that you are never that innocent person who gets wrongly convicted. Well, we disagree. I would have 1 million people convicted of murder spend a harsh lifetime in jail than risk executing a truly innocent person.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow. I hope that you are never that innocent person who gets wrongly convicted. Well, we disagree. I would have 1 million people convicted of murder spend a harsh lifetime in jail than risk executing a truly innocent person.

I hope so too. But, as I said, it's a risk I'm willing to shoulder.

I'll make a trade. I'm willing to watch the death penalty die...if I get a guarantee that every illegal alien in our prison system goes home, and our laws are adjusted to drastically reduce the amount coming in.

Then we'll have the room for the death row guys to hang out, get married, be miserable, or whatever for a good long time.

 

[mattskramer]

I hope so too. But, as I said, it's a risk I'm willing to shoulder.

I'll make a trade. I'm willing to watch the death penalty die...if I get a guarantee that every illegal alien in our prison system goes home, and our laws are adjusted to drastically reduce the amount coming in.

Then we'll have the room for the death row guys to hang out, get married, be miserable, or whatever for a good long time.

That sounds like something that I can agree too. I might also include legalizing several “crimes of consent” such as marijuana possession and gamboling. That should free some jail space.