Life in prison - is it more civilised than execution?

[LuckyDan]

All right, I'll take a stab at it.

Looking at our body of law, there are three things the State can take away from you in punishment for committing a crime - Liberty (incarceration), Property (Fines and so on), and Life.

Two of those things have at least an arguable premise that the State actively promotes, protects, grants or in some way controls them - Property and ownership as we think of it being the more obvious, Liberty being less so.

The one thing I have never seen an argument for is that the State gives, regulates, promotes and/or controls Life - Life meaning the property of being alive. If the State does not grant it or have any control over it, how can it be rightfully empowered to take it away?

(Waiting for the collective apoplexy of the resident originalists )

The state does have a contract to protect life and we collectively agree that it is paramount. To take a life is the most serious of crimes and we have a duty to the person who's life was taken to administer justice, even posthumously.

I agree with you as far as the paramount duty to protect life, which as you point out is the reason behind having laws criminalizing homicide and having the harshest of penalties for deliberately breaking them.

But when looking at the penalty itself, it's counterintuitive. If the State has the utmost duty to protect life, what is the justification for it then actively taking life?

 

[goldcatt]

The state does have a contract to protect life and we collectively agree that it is paramount. To take a life is the most serious of crimes and we have a duty to the person who's life was taken to administer justice, even posthumously.

I agree with you as far as the paramount duty to protect life, which as you point out is the reason behind having laws criminalizing homicide and having the harshest of penalties for deliberately breaking them.

But when looking at the penalty itself, it's counterintuitive. If the State has the utmost duty to protect life, what is the justification for it then actively taking life?

Okay, so you're saying it is justice.

Justice is, of course, a balancing act. We're balancing on one side the State's paramount duty to protect life against, what? How do you define the proper balance for justice? What principle is at work on the other side of the scales that is important enough to negate the State's duty to protect life, and therefore empowers it to take it?

 

[Diuretic]

All right, I'll take a stab at it.

Looking at our body of law, there are three things the State can take away from you in punishment for committing a crime - Liberty (incarceration), Property (Fines and so on), and Life.

Two of those things have at least an arguable premise that the State actively promotes, protects, grants or in some way controls them - Property and ownership as we think of it being the more obvious, Liberty being less so.

The one thing I have never seen an argument for is that the State gives, regulates, promotes and/or controls Life - Life meaning the property of being alive. If the State does not grant it or have any control over it, how can it be rightfully empowered to take it away?

(Waiting for the collective apoplexy of the resident originalists )

In terms of "right", the state can do it because it's permitted to do so by the people. I know that's a bit simplistic and probably has more holes than a sieve but I'll be happy to try and repair them later if need be. But I don't think that addresses the morality of the acts of the state, whether in imprisoning someone for life or for executing them. I'm still thinking about this, sorry for the inconclusive response.

 

[goldcatt]

All right, I'll take a stab at it.

Looking at our body of law, there are three things the State can take away from you in punishment for committing a crime - Liberty (incarceration), Property (Fines and so on), and Life.

Two of those things have at least an arguable premise that the State actively promotes, protects, grants or in some way controls them - Property and ownership as we think of it being the more obvious, Liberty being less so.

The one thing I have never seen an argument for is that the State gives, regulates, promotes and/or controls Life - Life meaning the property of being alive. If the State does not grant it or have any control over it, how can it be rightfully empowered to take it away?

(Waiting for the collective apoplexy of the resident originalists )

In terms of "right", the state can do it because it's permitted to do so by the people. I know that's a bit simplistic and probably has more holes than a sieve but I'll be happy to try and repair them later if need be. But I don't think that addresses the morality of the acts of the state, whether in imprisoning someone for life or for executing them. I'm still thinking about this, sorry for the inconclusive response.

Nah, I get what you're saying.

I'm looking at it from a different point of view, as in where within the principles of law itself does the right come from? Not necessarily whether the people have authorized it, the people can authorize just about anything. But does it fit with or contradict the principles of law as a whole that we follow?

If it contradicts, it may be authorized but I would say it makes it far les moral, or less civilized since it would seem to violate our first principles.

 

[LuckyDan]

I agree with you as far as the paramount duty to protect life, which as you point out is the reason behind having laws criminalizing homicide and having the harshest of penalties for deliberately breaking them.

But when looking at the penalty itself, it's counterintuitive. If the State has the utmost duty to protect life, what is the justification for it then actively taking life?

Okay, so you're saying it is justice.

Justice is, of course, a balancing act. We're balancing on one side the State's paramount duty to protect life against, what? How do you define the proper balance for justice? What principle is at work on the other side of the scales that is important enough to negate the State's duty to protect life, and therefore empowers it to take it?

We're balancing on one side the state's paramount duty to protect life against those among us who would take it wrongfully.

The proper balance is found when the murderer is made to forfeit his own life for the act of taking another.

The principle at work is to administer justice to the victim. A murderer has by his actions forfeited is right to protection.

 

[goldcatt]

Okay, so you're saying it is justice.

Justice is, of course, a balancing act. We're balancing on one side the State's paramount duty to protect life against, what? How do you define the proper balance for justice? What principle is at work on the other side of the scales that is important enough to negate the State's duty to protect life, and therefore empowers it to take it?

We're balancing on one side the state's paramount duty to protect life against those among us who would take it wrongfully.

The proper balance is found when the murderer is made to forfeit his own life for the act of taking another.

The principle at work is to administer justice to the victim. A murderer has by his actions forfeited is right to protection.

I see what you're saying, but what principle are we talking about that makes the murderer forfeit his right?

We cannot make the victim whole, so that's out. Is it retribution? Protection of others in society? What do we value enough to tip that balance and work a forfeit without jeopardizing our basic principle of protecting life? That's the one I personally can't answer - not with something that's more important.

 

[LuckyDan]

Okay, so you're saying it is justice.

Justice is, of course, a balancing act. We're balancing on one side the State's paramount duty to protect life against, what? How do you define the proper balance for justice? What principle is at work on the other side of the scales that is important enough to negate the State's duty to protect life, and therefore empowers it to take it?

We're balancing on one side the state's paramount duty to protect life against those among us who would take it wrongfully.

The proper balance is found when the murderer is made to forfeit his own life for the act of taking another.

The principle at work is to administer justice to the victim. A murderer has by his actions forfeited is right to protection.

I see what you're saying, but what principle are we talking about that makes the murderer forfeit his right?

We cannot make the victim whole, so that's out. Is it retribution? Protection of others in society? What do we value enough to tip that balance and work a forfeit without jeopardizing our basic principle of protecting life? That's the one I personally can't answer - not with something that's more important.

We protect the lives of those who value it. A murderer does not, and forcing him to join his victim in death is the closest we can come to making the victim whole.

Plus firing squads are super cool. This whole injection thing is an anti-climax.

 

[goldcatt]

We're balancing on one side the state's paramount duty to protect life against those among us who would take it wrongfully.

The proper balance is found when the murderer is made to forfeit his own life for the act of taking another.

The principle at work is to administer justice to the victim. A murderer has by his actions forfeited is right to protection.

I see what you're saying, but what principle are we talking about that makes the murderer forfeit his right?

We cannot make the victim whole, so that's out. Is it retribution? Protection of others in society? What do we value enough to tip that balance and work a forfeit without jeopardizing our basic principle of protecting life? That's the one I personally can't answer - not with something that's more important.

We protect the lives of those who value it. A murderer does not, and forcing him to join his victim in death is the closest we can come to making the victim whole.

Plus firing squads are super cool. This whole injection thing is an anti-climax.

I have a problem with saying we only have a duty to protect the lives of those who value life. What situations could that be applied to other than murder? It could be said people who endanger others have no regard for life. So what about an abusive parent? A drunk driver? Any situation where there is recklessness that could or does lead to loss of life short of deliberate murder? Do they forfeit their protection?

I dunno about the whole firing squad idea. Do they still get the blindfold and a smoke?

 

[LuckyDan]

I see what you're saying, but what principle are we talking about that makes the murderer forfeit his right?

We cannot make the victim whole, so that's out. Is it retribution? Protection of others in society? What do we value enough to tip that balance and work a forfeit without jeopardizing our basic principle of protecting life? That's the one I personally can't answer - not with something that's more important.

We protect the lives of those who value it. A murderer does not, and forcing him to join his victim in death is the closest we can come to making the victim whole.

Plus firing squads are super cool. This whole injection thing is an anti-climax.

I have a problem with saying we only have a duty to protect the lives of those who value life. What situations could that be applied to other than murder? It could be said people who endanger others have no regard for life. So what about an abusive parent? A drunk driver? Any situation where there is recklessness that could or does lead to loss of life short of deliberate murder? Do they forfeit their protection?

I dunno about the whole firing squad idea. Do they still get the blindfold and a smoke?

I'm talking capital punishment for convicted, ain't-no-doubt-about-it murderers. Dahmer, if you'd like an example.

Reckless endangerment is a whole nother story.

But let me axe you a kerstion. Does an absiove parent, to use your example, forfeit any paretnal rights by his abusive action?

 

[Father Time]

I love this country.....we keep assholes like Charles Manson alive....even when you're in a state that has the death penalty they hang around for 20 yrs putting in appeal after appeal.

Then there's the old folks that the left wants to just die and leave this country to them....forget about their old-fashioned ways of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What an outdated concept.

So who are the left trying to forcefully kill?

 

[goldcatt]

We protect the lives of those who value it. A murderer does not, and forcing him to join his victim in death is the closest we can come to making the victim whole.

Plus firing squads are super cool. This whole injection thing is an anti-climax.

I have a problem with saying we only have a duty to protect the lives of those who value life. What situations could that be applied to other than murder? It could be said people who endanger others have no regard for life. So what about an abusive parent? A drunk driver? Any situation where there is recklessness that could or does lead to loss of life short of deliberate murder? Do they forfeit their protection?

I dunno about the whole firing squad idea. Do they still get the blindfold and a smoke?

I'm talking capital punishment for convicted, ain't-no-doubt-about-it murderers. Dahmer, if you'd like an example.

Reckless endangerment is a whole nother story.

But let me axe you a kerstion. Does an absiove parent, to use your example, forfeit any paretnal rights by his abusive action?

They can, depending on the severity of the abuse. They can be monitored and directed by the State, therefore losing some degree of their right to make decisions for their children. They can lose physical custody. They can lose visitation rights or be confined to modified and supervised visitation. They can even have their rights terminated altogether.

The parental rights are balanced in that case by the State's interest in acting to protect the life and welfare of the child, although the system as we all know is somewhat flawed the principles are sound.

 

[Mr Natural]

Life in prison is punishment.

Execution ends the punishment.

 

[LuckyDan]

Life in prison is punishment.

Execution ends the punishment.

Truth.

 

[LuckyDan]

I have a problem with saying we only have a duty to protect the lives of those who value life. What situations could that be applied to other than murder? It could be said people who endanger others have no regard for life. So what about an abusive parent? A drunk driver? Any situation where there is recklessness that could or does lead to loss of life short of deliberate murder? Do they forfeit their protection?

I dunno about the whole firing squad idea. Do they still get the blindfold and a smoke?

I'm talking capital punishment for convicted, ain't-no-doubt-about-it murderers. Dahmer, if you'd like an example.

Reckless endangerment is a whole nother story.

But let me axe you a kerstion. Does an absiove parent, to use your example, forfeit any paretnal rights by his abusive action?

They can, depending on the severity of the abuse. They can be monitored and directed by the State, therefore losing some degree of their right to make decisions for their children. They can lose physical custody. They can lose visitation rights or be confined to modified and supervised visitation. They can even have their rights terminated altogether.

The parental rights are balanced in that case by the State's interest in acting to protect the life and welfare of the child, although the system as we all know is somewhat flawed the principles are sound.

Well there you go. The parent forfeits his rights by being abusive. The murderer forfeits his right to protection by violating his victim's right for same.

Consider, too, the deprivation of liberty as punishment for murder. It doesn't bring the victim back to life, so why bother to do even that?

 

[goldcatt]

I'm talking capital punishment for convicted, ain't-no-doubt-about-it murderers. Dahmer, if you'd like an example.

Reckless endangerment is a whole nother story.

But let me axe you a kerstion. Does an absiove parent, to use your example, forfeit any paretnal rights by his abusive action?

They can, depending on the severity of the abuse. They can be monitored and directed by the State, therefore losing some degree of their right to make decisions for their children. They can lose physical custody. They can lose visitation rights or be confined to modified and supervised visitation. They can even have their rights terminated altogether.

The parental rights are balanced in that case by the State's interest in acting to protect the life and welfare of the child, although the system as we all know is somewhat flawed the principles are sound.

Well there you go. The parent forfeits his rights by being abusive. The murderer forfeits his right to protection by violating his victim's right for same.

Consider, too, the deprivation of liberty as punishment for murder. It doesn't bring the victim back to life, so why bother to do even that?

That's easy. Protection of society, to keep him (or her) separate from society and unable to kill someone else. Theoretically, at least.

We're assuming all systems work as intended here, after all.

 

[LuckyDan]

They can, depending on the severity of the abuse. They can be monitored and directed by the State, therefore losing some degree of their right to make decisions for their children. They can lose physical custody. They can lose visitation rights or be confined to modified and supervised visitation. They can even have their rights terminated altogether.

The parental rights are balanced in that case by the State's interest in acting to protect the life and welfare of the child, although the system as we all know is somewhat flawed the principles are sound.

Well there you go. The parent forfeits his rights by being abusive. The murderer forfeits his right to protection by violating his victim's right for same.

Consider, too, the deprivation of liberty as punishment for murder. It doesn't bring the victim back to life, so why bother to do even that?

That's easy. Protection of society, to keep him (or her) separate from society and unable to kill someone else. Theoretically, at least.

We're assuming all systems work as intended here, after all.

But wouldn't it be more fun to shoot the son of a bitch full of holes?

Okay. I'm for serious now. Locking him up deprives him of liberty, which as you have said, is a protected right. Is that not counterintuitive?

 

[goldcatt]

Well there you go. The parent forfeits his rights by being abusive. The murderer forfeits his right to protection by violating his victim's right for same.

Consider, too, the deprivation of liberty as punishment for murder. It doesn't bring the victim back to life, so why bother to do even that?

That's easy. Protection of society, to keep him (or her) separate from society and unable to kill someone else. Theoretically, at least.

We're assuming all systems work as intended here, after all.

But wouldn't it be more fun to shoot the son of a bitch full of holes?

Okay. I'm for serious now. Locking him up deprives him of liberty, which as you have said, is a protected right. Is that not counterintuitive?

Hmm...I'm all about fun, of course. And I see what you're doing here.

I would argue first that Life and Liberty do not enjoy the same level of protection. For proof of that, simply look at the difference in penalty between homicide and violations of another's liberty like kidnapping or false imprisonment. Compare those yet again to violations afffecting only Property, such as theft and most of your white collar crime.

Depending on several factors such as intent, you'll find a sliding scale downward from Life to Liberty to Property. This generally reflects the level of importance we attach to the underlying values. If Liberty is still important, but less so than life, IMO it is far easier to justify taking a person's liberty than it is to take their life. Looking at Justice as the scales, Liberty weighs less and can be balanced by less. What is more justifiable and more in keeping with our values is by default more moral and civilized, IMO.

 

[LuckyDan]

That's easy. Protection of society, to keep him (or her) separate from society and unable to kill someone else. Theoretically, at least.

We're assuming all systems work as intended here, after all.

But wouldn't it be more fun to shoot the son of a bitch full of holes?

Okay. I'm for serious now. Locking him up deprives him of liberty, which as you have said, is a protected right. Is that not counterintuitive?

Hmm...I'm all about fun, of course. And I see what you're doing here.

I would argue first that Life and Liberty do not enjoy the same level of protection. For proof of that, simply look at the difference in penalty between homicide and violations of another's liberty like kidnapping or false imprisonment. Compare those yet again to violations afffecting only Property, such as theft and most of your white collar crime.

Depending on several factors such as intent, you'll find a sliding scale downward from Life to Liberty to Property. This generally reflects the level of importance we attach to the underlying values. If Liberty is still important, but less so than life, IMO it is far easier to justify taking a person's liberty than it is to take their life. Looking at Justice as the scales, Liberty weighs less and can be balanced by less. What is more justifiable and more in keeping with our values is by default more moral and civilized, IMO.

My white collar crimes aside, what AM I doing here?

But on the other side of those scales is the crime. Murder. Weighty.

Just as the state must protect property, it can sieze it. Just as it must protect liberty, it can deny it. We agree it must protect life, why can't it take it as commensurate punishment?

There. I've run rings around you logically.

 

[xotoxi]

I would be. To me, the main issue with the death penalty is not unfairness in application but, simply, the moral issue: even though a person is clearly guilty of a capital crime, is it morally proper for the state to execute them? I hold that it is not.

How about you, Dogs?

Speaking of dogs...a normally non-aggressive, friendly pet dog mauls and maims an infant ONCE and they are euthanized, while a killer whale kills three people (two trainers and another guy), they continue to perform for the public.

Can anyone say double standard?

 

[JenyEliza]

In another thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...th-penalty-for-white-collar-crimes.htmlGeorge Costanza wrote:

The cost of keeping a murderer in prison for the rest of his life is the price we pay for the right to call ourselves a civilized society.

Is it civilised? This is not a new question. J.S.Mill spoke for the death penalty and against life imprisonment but I think it was from the position that prisons of his time were so bad that it was merciful to execute someone rather than allow them to spend the rest of their life in a squalid prison.

THE longest serving prisoner in Queensland, and possibly Australia, has died in his cell.

Edward Arthur Antony Rawlins, 82, who was sentenced to life in 1956 for the 1955 murder of a 12-year-old girl in Townsville, was found unconscious in his cell at Wolston Correctional Centre, in Brisbane's south, at 6.15am AEST today.

Man dies in custody after 54 years behind bars | Courier Mail

One reason for life imprisonment is that you can let the person out if they've been wrongly convicted so I suppose in many ways this is a question with a ready-made answer but I wonder if keeping someone in prison for life is any more civilised than executing them. If it is more civilised, why?

That's MR. Costanza to you.

Good question. Frankly, I think LWOP (life without possibility of parole) is much more cruel than execution. So, for all of you "the bastard deserves it" pro-death penalty folks, take heart - there is a valid argument that LWOP is indeed worse than death.

Suppose you are given the choice of death by lethal injection or LWOP. Honest to God, I'd have to think about it.

Everyone in this thread better hope to HELL they are never personally affected by a crime that ends with LWOP or the DP.

See my sig line? See the linky? Tap that and read it....and read it from the perspective of a parent, sister, brother, cousin, aunt or uncle of a child you love dearly.

Lori Ann Smith was an 8 year old little girl when she was murdered in 1974. Her big sister and I were 12 when she was stalked for two weeks by Virgil Delano Presnell (a white man in his early 20's at the time), who is a sexual deviant and predator.

He abducted Lori and her 10 year old friend as they walked home from school. He took them to a wooded area and raped the 10 year old in front of Lori--who ran when she saw this happening. Presnell chased her down, threw her in a creek and knelt on her back, face down in the water until she breathed no more.

To say our community was traumatized by this crime is quite the understatement. Parents locked us down....afraid this would happen to us. No more happy bike riding, or walking to a friend's house, or walking to the convenience store. Nope. We sat in our houses and watched TV, and annoyed the hell out of our parents in the process. And yet--they were so damned grateful we were alive and untouched by a creep like Presnell.

In 1976 he was tried and found guilty by a 12 man jury and given the DP. We were too young to attend that murder trial. BUT...Lori's sister and I attended his 2nd penalty trial in 1999 (after exhaustive appeals all the way to the USSC), where he was again found to be deserving of the death penalty, unanimously by yet a second jury. We sat mere feet away from the man, and I can say with all certainty I have been in the presence of pure unadulterated evil. He breathes and oozes evil from every pore.

It is now 2010, 36 years after Lori's brutal murder. Guess what? Presnell is STILL on Death Row. Still alive. Still tormenting Lori's family--from Death Row. Still trying to sneak kiddie porn into prison on Death Row. STILL APPEALING his multiple DP sentences.

This cretin ADMITS he killed Lori. Conclusive evidence was found in his home, vehicle and in the woods linking him to the crime--nevermind, the 10 year old girl he raped. She survived. So there's a witness who can testify to the facts.

She has EXCELLENT recall of the events. She was an excellent witness in 1976 and again in 1999.

WHEN do his appeals exhaust? When is enough enough?

When Virgil Delano Presnell finally dies for his crimes against Lori and her 10 year old friend, I will take down my sig line and the link.

Careful reading the link--it's NOT for the weak minded or faint of heart. It is VERY explicit in the description(s) of everything that happened. VERY detailed.

Read at your own risk. It *should* shock your conscience and break your heart, as it describes fully the brutal way in which an innocent 2nd grader (rising 3rd grader) died. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh...and by the way....the anniversary of Lori's murder is coming up next month in May. Spring is not a good time for Lori's family--especially her Mom. Of course, neither is Lori's birthday, Christmas and other special days during the year.

Be grateful your family doesn't hurt like the Smith family still does--even 36 years later.

Lori Ann Smith--an innocent 8 year old girl. Gone--but never, ever forgotten.