The Death Penalty

The thing about the US definition of Treason being narrow though is that it still punishes all the things that other western nations punish as treason just as harshly (or even more harshly), it just calls them something other than treason.

'Sedition' and 'Espionage and Sedition' for instance. Edward Snowden has been accused of the latter for exposing the domestic intelligence gathering activities of the NSA and therefore faces a potential death penalty (if the prosecution pushes for that) for essentially revealing information the majority of the American public agrees he was right to reveal. (And yes, I know that realistically Snowden won't get the death penalty... But only because the public is now aware of what he did and why. If he'd been caught in the attempt, before actually releasing the information, it's entirely possible he'd have been given quick non-public trial and execution just to keep him from revealing what he did.)

Whence the comment I made in the post that got thumped.

Angry gets shit done.

...Texas and the death penalty have an...interesting relationship.

Disgusted, but not surprised

re: desertion, I specifically said desertion in the face of the enemy. There's a huge difference between going on leave and never coming back and going Screw This, I'm Outta Here in actual combat. Part of this is pure pragmatism — "in the face of the enemy" is when people have the most incentive to desert (because they may very well be killed in the immediate future), so it needs the most incentive to remain at your post. Armies that can't get their soldiers to stand and fight can't win battles. Countries with armies that can't win battles collapse or are conquered. Desertion in the face of the enemy is a threat to the state itself, which is why I include it alongside things like treason and espionage.

Basically, yes. It's worth noting that actual spies are rarely executed. More often they're either tolerated — many "diplomatic" staff members in embassies and consulates are actually intelligence officers — or else held and exchanged for your spies that got caught in their country. Espionage laws are generally in place in order to charge your own citizens — ie, to keep people from selling secrets to your enemies. The most famous espionage case in America is undoubtedly the Rosenbergs, who were executed for passing military secrets (including nuclear weapon technology) to the USSR.

Again, this is a pragmatist thing. A system that doesn't defend itself will be destroyed. An attack on the system itself is inherently more serious than an attack on an individual within the system, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Interestingly every legal review since has concluded that the Rosenbergs were guilty only of some of the more minor things in the long list of things they were accused of, in the words of one law professor, 'guilty, but framed' (sometimes styled as 'guilty and framed') and should never have been executed. They were killed primarily because the Judge in that case wanted to show how tough he was on 'Commies'.

Angry gets shit done.

Why is a terrorist worse than a serial killer? Killing 20 people in one attack or killing 20 people in 20 murders has the same effect on society. It lost 20 people. Neither of those criminals has the power to bring down the government. Criminals like rapists or murderers have a much larger impact on society than terrorists. You're much more likely to get raped or murdered than killed by a terrorist. Only when you have civil war like circumstances is it different. But then you're basically in a war. And organized crime can undermine the government too. Should mafiosi also get the death penalty?

And a person who doesn't defend themselves does too. So why is desertion so evil? Only if you value the existence of a system over the live of a human being is desertion a bad thing. A system that forces people to die for it isn't worth existing anyway.

Because terrorism is a political statement, while serial killing is not. The target of a serial killer is a series of individuals. The target of terrorism is society itself.

You realize that we're talking about volunteer armies, right? It's not Stalinesque "set up a machine gun position behind the front lines to kill any conscripts who try to retreat" thing. But once you've volunteered, you can't change your mind at the last minute. If that was allowed, the system breaks down and the state cannot defend itself.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

"set up a machine gun position behind the front lines to kill any conscripts who try to retreat"

twitch

Aside from the fact that Enemy At The Gates is total BS and that never happened, I otherwise agree with you.

I do hold that attacks on society are infinitely more harmful than attacks on individuals. A serial killer isn't going to cause a state to fail, terrorists groups can and have pulled that off.

edited 6th Apr '17 9:23:42 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Then there are no systems worth existing, those who don't, at one point or another, have people die from it. Whether from within our without the system are an utopic pipe dreams.

Any system will have laws or rules in place that will have to kill people in order to protect itself and by extension for people to kill and die for it.

I agree with that stance also, but in cases of serial killers the society doesn't have any of a choice besides either putting it down or locking it for life. Psychopaths and serial rapists, specially those repeated offenders can't live in society without putting it at risk. There should be a limit for people who, whenever they regain their freedom they use it to commit murder, torture and rape again should no longer be allowed to live within society anymore. Either locked up in solitary confinement for life or have them get a death sentence.

Inter arma enim silent leges

And the vast majority of abolitionist countries do lock serial killers away for life. And that's cheaper than executing them to.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Life imprisonment is only cheaper because the US has a very complex and drawn-out requirement for appeals that can — no — does take many years and more trials to work through. Evn if the person was caught in the act, confessed freely on live TV and said "Hell, yeah, I did it and I'll do it again if I get the chance.", a death sentence will be appealed.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Because it has to be. If you're going to kill people, you better make damn sure you've got the right person.

Yeah, I don't really have an issue with the fact that death penalty cases are long, expensive processes. Obviously if we could speed it up and make it cheaper without cutting corners regarding accuracy, then we should do that, but "if we can improve something with no drawbacks when we should" really goes without saying.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Just how expensive are 5 bullets anyway?

Where there's life, there's hope.

The process isn't the pricey part, bullets go for pretty cheap in bulk (especially when compared to a government's budget, even a state one. That's not even a rounding error of an expense), its the appeals and so forth. Though lethal injection drugs are becoming very expensive, because all of the (mainly European) drug companies aren't selling them to American governments anymore.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Firing squad is a really shitty form of execution for a variety of reasons. It's painful, unreliable (yes, people can and have survived the first round of a firing squad and required multiple volleys to execute), and traumatic for the executioners.

If you're going to execute people, there's basically no reason not to use nitrogen asphyxiation. It's like the gas chamber, but instead of using a toxic gas, you fill the room with pure nitrogen. The condemned essentially falls asleep, then dies from lack of oxygen — all without any panting, gasping, choking, or pain, because our bodies aren't wired to detect "lack of oxygen", only "too much carbon dioxide" (which doesn't happen, because the condemned is still exhaling normally). There's also no dangerous substances to deal with after the fact — simply unseal the room and let it air out. The atmosphere is like 80% nitrogen anyway.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Even the Nazis had to abandon firing squads in the early days of the Holocaust because of its inefficiency and the psychological impact upon soldiers. And people have survived point blank blasts to the head, let alone at distance with a rifile.

I'm not sure why nitrogen asphyxiation doesn't seem to have much traction as a means of doing so, as it's as close to a "humane" means as I can think of. Though I remain 100% utterly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, and nothing, including a genocidal maniac, could ever convince me that it's justified, so campaigning for better means of doing it isn't exactly something I'll be doing.

If you can't bear to kill people, you shouldn't do it, especially when alternatives exist.

Yeah, let's ignore all the other perfect valid reasons for not using firing squads and insist that we should use it because anyone willing to enforce the law of the land in a way you personally disagree with is evilbadwrong and deserves to suffer.

It's not a question of whether you can "bear to kill people" or not. Obviously, they can. "It's impossible to find people who are willing to execute a condemned convict" has never been an argument against the death penalty.

I have zero sympathy for the argument that we should make something more painful than necessary because the thing is distasteful, even though it's necessary. If the death penalty is a valid punishment, then it should be done in a way that is as painless as possible and minimizes suffering for everyone involved, executioners included. If the death penalty isn't a valid punishment, then we shouldn't be using it at all. Arguing that we should, in essence, punish executioners because you don't like the death penalty is vindictive and cruel.

edited 7th Apr '17 5:57:15 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

My main beef with the death penalty is that it's not something you can take back. The idea of the state wrongfully killing an innocent citizen...

Disgusted, but not surprised

You true of any punishment, not just the death penalty.

Let's say you're wrongly convicted of murder and spend 20 years in jail before the conviction is overturned. They can release you, they can purge your criminal record, they can offer restitution. But they can't give you your 20 years back.

Let's abolish prison time entirely, since no one can ever give you the years of your life back if it turns out that you were wrongly imprisoned.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

There's a difference between taking a number of years from an innocent person's life and all the years from an innocent person's life.

Kind of like the difference between kidnapping and holding someone captive for a while and murdering them.

edited 7th Apr '17 6:51:29 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

Of course there's a difference. But the difference isn't "one can be undone if a mistake is discovered and the other cannot". Neither can be undone. You can't bring an executed person back to life, and you can't give someone 20 years of freedom back if that was taken from them improperly.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

But with one, the innocent person can still feel a measure of satisfaction and maybe justice after receiving an apology and restitution.

With the other...they're still a corpse.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "take it back". "Make up for it" is a bit closer to what I meant.

edited 7th Apr '17 7:02:13 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

Sure. But my point is that a difference of degree, not of kind. By the same logic, you could argue for abolishing life sentences because it's a possibility that a wrongly convicted person could die in prison before their wrongful conviction is overturned, but I seriously doubt that you'd actually support that position.

You can try to make up for an execution, as well. Pay restitution to their families and the like. No, it's not good enough, but getting a few million dollars for 20 years in prison isn't good enough either. But it's something.

edited 7th Apr '17 7:04:24 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Assuming of course the deceased has next of kin. If not...well I guess the state lucks out.

Disgusted, but not surprised