The Death Penalty

I think my issue with your premise, though, Jovian, is you reach a point where the punishments for the crimes just can't get more severe.

Which is why you start from the top and work down from there. You find what you consider the be the worst crimes (crimes against humanity) and the strictest sentences (either execution or life in prison without parole) and call the latter an appropriate sentence for the former, then move down to less severe crimes and less severe sentences.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Which would be? Killing a million? Hundred thousands? Somewhere the scale will fail and you have to punish the guy responible for 20 million deaths the same as the guy responsible for 30 million deaths.

About treason. The thing is that there is no need to punish it seperately. If their treason leads to say, thousand deaths than charge them for the deaths of those people instead of "treason".

Native Jovian: Except I don't always agree with #1 there. Yes, people who have done worse things are more dangerous and will usually, for one reason or another, need to be kept out of public for longer (and also made to cover more damages or other such things, in cases where there's something they can do to undo the damage they did), but I just don't think people need to be punished because they do bad stuff unless the punishment has some other purpose. I want long-planning serial killers to be locked away in prison for life not because they deserve it, but because it keeps people safe. Punishment isn't a guaranteed deterrent, and so I disagree with part of the premise. To me, it's not a matter of what punishment people deserve, but of what punishment is necessary for them. Does that make sense?

@Jovian

Going to respond to a few things here:

"Proven, no, but it can certainly be argued for or against."

The same thing can be said for "executing people is the worst thing we can do to them" or even "we should never execute anybody". Any position can be argued for or against. We've all made statements and said why we believe them. I'm not sure why you think yours is any different.

"That's basically my stance as well, except replace "being free" with "being alive". If you're willing to lock up someone for the rest of their life for garden variety crimes against individuals (which it seems that you are, even if you don't want to call it that), then you have to do something more severe to punish a more serious type of crime. Since crimes against humanity are more serious than simple murder, then they require the death penalty — a more serious sentence — to maintain proportionality in sentencing."

I stated flatout that where I live, the worst sentence anybody can get is twenty-five years, with parole, and that I'm fine with that for plain old murderers. I also said that the more people you kill, the more sentences you should serve, and that if we give somebody who is convicted a thousand murders a twenty-five year sentence for each of them, they are never, ever going to see the light of day. I also said that I would have no issue with using "life without parole" as a sentence for people charged with crimes against humanity. I said it right here, in this post. So kindly don't misconstrue my points. I've now said in both this post and that one that life in prison, with no chance of ever getting out, is what I favour for the type of criminals you're talking about. I've also said I don't favour a sentence of more than twenty-five years for the average murderer. Is that clear enough, or do I need to find another way to say it?

I'll add that if it's a choice between failing to have proportionality in sentencing and executing somebody, I'll take failing to have proportionality in sentencing. Again, my main thing is protecting society. So long as that's the case, "proportionality" is a secondary concern for me.

"If you want to say that both the single murderer and the mass murderer should get life in prison, then that's unjust and unreasonable, because you're assigning the same sentence to two crimes of vastly different severity."

Actually this does push towards the sort of obsessiveness you were denying. I'm all for the notion that "the punishment fits the crime" but again, given the choice between executing somebody and having a justice system that doesn't meet your particular definition of "fair" I'll take the latter. One could just as easily argue that anybody who has killed anybody has proven that they have no right to interact with society anymore and therefore deserve life in prison and/or death. That's not my personal stance, but it's still an internally consistent train of logic—just one that starts from the premise that any murder is worthy of that degree of punishment (while you start from the premise that only specific ones are).

To reiterate my person stance (just so we can make it absolutely clear) I favour twenty-five years with parole for a single count of murder. Multiple murderers (serial killers and their ilk) can serve one such sentence for every person they are convicted of killing (this also goes for multiple rapists, repeat torture, etc. Do the time for every crime). People who are convicted of crimes against humanity can be sentenced to life without parole (or visitors for that matter. I'm normally against that sort of thing, but once you're guilty of genocide, politicide, etc, my sympathy sort of vanishes). No death penalty required, thank you all the same.

Now here's a question Jovian—in an earlier post you listed some people who you thought deserved the death penalty. One of them was that guy who kept his daughter in his basement and raped her for years. You do realize that as disgusting as that is, it doesn't fall under the purview of "crimes against humanity" right? Under the very system you've been proposing the last batch of posts, he wouldn't get executed.

EDIT: For the benefit of everybody, wikipedia's article on crimes against humanity.

edited 14th Aug '14 8:04:30 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

I've already said, repeatedly, in the last page or so, that I would consider crimes against humanity to be the most serious crimes that someone can commit. Hell, I say so explicitly, in exactly those words ("the worst crimes (crimes against humanity)") in the sentence after the second one you quoted. Obviously there's a limit to how granular you can get with the severity of crimes, but I don't think that "crimes against humanity are the worst crimes that can be committed" is a particularly controversial statement.

If your view on crime and punishment is one that focuses on outcomes rather than principles (ie, you only care about the results produced by the punishment, rather than ensuring that the punishment meets some criteria of fairness or justice), then I'll ask you the same question I asked Ambar when he said that. Would you be okay of some sort of A Clockwork Orange style brainwashing that resulted in a prison sentence of days or weeks instead of years and decades?

edited 14th Aug '14 8:05:54 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Well, depends a lot on context. If we were sure the person signing up for it knew what they were signing up for and was okay with it, then using that on people who can't be reintegrated otherwise would be acceptable, because if a prisoner agrees to pay a price like that for freedom, then it's their choice.

The line in that post that I believe you're referring to is "I'd have to problem with restricting "life without parole" to people who commit crimes against humanity." That's obviously a typo, but I took it as "I'd have a problem", not "I'd have no problem". I thought you meant that you didn't like "life without parole" as a singular sentence for anything, but you were okay with "one thousand 25-year sentences, to be served consecutively" which is effectively the same thing as "life without parole". It seems the whole misunderstanding was caused by a typo, so apologies for misunderstanding you.

You've said that your main thing is protecting society, but you've also said that you'd be against A Clockwork Orange style brainwashing, which seem to be at odds with each other. If your primary concern is protecting society from criminal behavior, then wouldn't brainwashing the criminal behavior out of convicted criminals be ideal?

Personally, I think there's more to sentencing than just ensuring the safety of society. Even if you could reliably brainwash criminals to prevent them from committing crimes again, I would feel that such a sentence was unjust, since the criminal wasn't punished for their behavior. If they do bad things, they deserve to suffer the consequences of doing so.

Yep! That would be consistent and legitimate stance to take. I would disagree, because I believe that justice (or fairness, or whatever you want to call it) involves giving people a chance to make up for their mistakes, so I wouldn't say that a single count of murder deserves life imprisonment. Multiple counts, especially over a long period of time as with many serial killers, demonstrates a pattern of behavior rather than a single mistake, so they deserve less leniency (and I'm comfortable giving them life without parole). Something even more serious, like crimes against humanity, demonstrates not only a pattern of behavior but a conscious and willful disregard for the value of others as human beings — for which death is an appropriate punishment.

To bring it down to absolute basics, if someone like Hitler or Stalin were tried for their crimes, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, then I would consider that unjust, because the punishment is insufficient for the crime. They deserve death for the things they did. It's not a matter of protecting society from them — I agree that life in prison does that just as well as execution does. It's about making sure that the punishment fits the crime.

That's true, but I made those posts months ago, and my position has evolved since then. I was never really happy with my inability to draw a solid distinction between what I felt justified execution and what I felt didn't. Eventually I settled on "crimes against individuals" vs "crimes against humanity" for a good, easily discernible dividing line.

Why should they get a choice? They've committed a crime and demonstrated that they're a danger to society. Your options are to Clockwork Orange them and render them safe for society again, or else imprison them for years, at much greater expense and much less certain results. If your goal is keeping society safe from them, then doing the Clockwork Orange procedure is obviously the best option. So why not just do it and be done with it?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

My goal is to keep society safe in a humane way. While Clockwork Oranging them would save money, my problems with mandatory COing would be similar to my problems with the death penalty. For the worst crimes, I would think it should be a choice between Clockwork Oranging and the death penalty, namely because when you're Clockwork Oranged, you might have problems with suicide if it was too nasty to endure.

You missed my point. Not all crimes against humanity are equally bad. So you will have the problem of giving the highest punishment to different crimes regardless if you use the death penalty or not.

Every punishment would be insufficient for their crimes.

I strongly disagree. If you want to appeal that no amount of punishment is ever enough (for crimes committed), then at least we should all approach this by proportions, by measuring the severity of the crime and the impact of said crime on the society.

Same as usual.... Wing it.

• The rebels of today are often the corpses of tomorrow.
• Also, replacing a system with an equally bad or even worse system is a thing that happens. Many rebels are only really objecting because they are not the king.

When the repo men come, if you lack sufficient funds to cover your entire debt, they don't forfeit the entire thing and leave you with your stuff. They still take everything they can, even if they have to swallow the remainder.

edited 15th Aug '14 12:26:53 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

And I still fail to see why this obsession with "proportionality" should trump all the actual problems with the death penalty. Every time I see this all I hear is people writing off potential innocents as collateral damage, because horror of horrors, we might not be punishing the guilty harshly enough for their tastes. That's a stance I find unacceptable.

@Jovian

I said this the first time you brought it up and I'll say it again—I would oppose brainwashing inmates because it's unethical not because it's an insufficient punishment. Leaving aside the very real possibility of a screw-up, the concept requires us to erase your personality and build a new one on top, which is damned close to killing you anyway.

edited 15th Aug '14 3:04:21 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

My point was to refute the argument that we have to use the death penalty to have an adequate scale. No matter what the ultimate punishment will be, you will have the problem that at a certain point, it will not work proportionately anymore. So that's not an argument for the death penalty. Or any other form of punishment.

edited 15th Aug '14 4:05:36 PM by Antiteilchen

-EDIT- I originally gave an open response regarding my thoughts on the subject, but it was suggested that it was against the forum rules. I will simply say that if a victim were to turn the tables on their attacker, I would not criminalize that behavior, nor would I have a moral problem with it. I would prefer in the circumstances listed above that the offender simply be executed, but I would never look at a victim who "got back" at their victimizer and think "they're a bad person" or "they belong in jail." -END EDIT-

For me, it's about making certain the criminal is, to the best of our ability, placed in at least as bad a position as their victims. There isn't even a shred of justice in a system where someone can murder an innocent person, and then be allowed to continue receiving what enjoyments life has to offer (anticipation, pleasure, joy). To let them out after 25 years with parole and allow them to do something with their lives? The thought makes me sick. Allowing them to go on and become productive citizens, maybe even leave a legacy, when their victims will never get that chance is a mockery of justice and fairness.

To those who are against the concept of punishment being used in the justice system, if we could install a foolproof machine in someone's head that would stop them from committing criminal actions (not the impulses mind you; the personality is left intact, but they are restrained by the machine) in a foolproof manner, would you be okay with installing it in Ariel Castro (had he survived) or James Holmes or Adam Lanza (had he survived) and letting them go^note If you have some technicality or loophole for why the machine wouldn't work I don't care. The premise is that it's foolproof; I'm interested in your reaction to a world where such a machine was possible without whatever little side effect you have in mind.? After all, if the justice system is just about protecting people, not punishing them, wouldn't that machine be the best way to do that?

edited 16th Aug '14 9:32:06 AM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

That... ugh, I find that really gross. You're fine with making rape legal so long as it's perpetrated by a state-sanctioned person against a state-sanctioned victim? There is no way to implement that that would make it less utterly revolting.

Anyway, justice should not be about tit-for-tat, everybody gets an equal amount of misery. It's simply not possible for it to work that way.

For one thing, you're not ever going to make it equal. Let's say I'm in a position of power. I have the money to pay whatever medical bills I have, if I get seriously injured or disabled or whatever, I will be fine. A poor person attacks me and puts me in hospital. If I then go and put THEM in hospital, that's fair, right? But it's not. Being put in hospital hurts them more due to their particular circumstances, because I have money and influence and they don't.

You're not ever going to be able to directly measure the amount of pain and suffering an action has caused and then inflict that precise amount on the perpetrator.

edited 15th Aug '14 7:54:01 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

-EDIT- See my above post. It was suggested that my response was against forum rules. I apologize; I will simply say again that I would not want to punish, nor would I think less of, a victim who turned the tables on their victimizer.-END EDIT-

To be perfectly honest, I doubt most rape victims would want to rape their rapist (and I'd be fine with just saying, "Forget it, just give rapists/torturers the death penalty"), but if someone did, just to punish the criminal, I would not want to send them to jail for it.

Everyone? No. But to allow the criminal to be in a better position than his victim? That sickens me and feels like an affront to justice.

Maybe not. I certainly don't see it actually happening. I'm just saying that *I* couldn't criminalize such retributive actions.

I don't really mind all that much if the criminal is put in a slightly worse position than the victim, so long as they are not given an opportunity to be in a better position. There are limits to this, but I feel like common sense can define them.

edited 16th Aug '14 9:34:02 AM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

"Eye for an eye" punishment systems have never worked in any society that's attempted them. Preventive punishment might be an option, like sterilizing rapists, but that's something that hasn't withstood judicial scrutiny.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'd like to point out that for people who are guilty of crimes like rape or torture, I would be much more comfortable simply executing them and calling it a day; however, I would not be comfortable legally punishing their victims if said victims turned the tables on them, nor would I think less of those victims morally.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Did you read Jovian's one post? Eye for an eye was meant to restrict punishment so that is was not disproportional.

Except that many modern judicial systems have found "eye for an eye" to violate the proscription on cruel and unusual punishment, or whatever the particular version of that rule is that a nation may have.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The point is when it was made it had a purpose. We are arguing here not about it in modern times but about the history of it. No one uses it in modern times for obvious reasons.

Another thing worth noting is that "eye for an eye" can perpetuate a Cycle Of Abuse, which is contrary to one of the expressed scopes of law enforcement; to reduce the incidence of crime.

Speaking of that, my main opposition to the death penalty is really that I see no indication that it makes anybody's life better (or society, for that matter).

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

When someone steals your car you don't get to steal theirs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, isn't it against forum rules to advocate for rape or something?

I think that somewhere along the lines, the Perfect Solution Fallacy is in play here. It's not a stance, or an impasse, I can tolerate. I can be very personal about it, but it is against forum rules to do so.

We're not here to make our laws Pay Evil unto Evil, but we must at least acknowledge the most basic working format of law is that it has suitable punishments for every offender. By saying that 'eventually, no amount of punishment will be enough', you are implying that you do not want punishments. That overlaps with the saying of criminals having better lots in life than innocents. This is not something that should happen in any orderly society.

Same as usual.... Wing it.