The trouble with the death penalty is that, when someone has committed a crime that will gain them the death penalty, they will do whatever they can to survive, which is usually committing more crimes worthy of the death penalty.
It's not been shown to reduce crime levels at all, either, because most people who have the death penalty are one-time murderers. (As in they're in the highest statistical groups to do murders a single time and be rehabilitated.) Anyone higher up generally has lawyers that can get them only jail time or just get away with it.
I do think that the death penalty should be reserved for people who cannot be rehabilitated, however, and still pose a permanent danger to society. Either the death penalty or some method of making them harmless (as Orwellian as that may sound).
Some people are equivalent to rabid dogs and have broken the social contract so thoroughly they ought to be removed permenantly. It usually isn't that hard to figure out which people these are, but for some reason they tend to garner fan groups who are like "HE DIDN'T MEAN TO KILL 17 WOMEN, DECAPITATE THEM, AND HAVE SEX WITH THEIR TRACHEAS! HE'S A PRODUCT OF SOCIETY!" Or somehow get really good lawyers.
My blood-thirstyness out of the way, if we could in some way change the prison culture so it's productive towards rehabilitation instead of being miniature gang warfare battlegrounds we might have less rabid dogs who've broken the social contract so thoroughly they ought to be removed permanently.
edited 7th Jan '11 9:45:49 AM by Bur
I'm mostly with Bur on this one in terms of hopeless cases and see no reason for society to continue supporting these people when the funding could be spent on more people that can be helped to a greater degree with greater chance of success.
However I also find that in practice, the legal appeals process on death row is considerably more expensive than just throwing them in jail for life to keep them away from the rest of us. And then there's also this,
which means any attempt to cut down the appeals process is a terrible idea.
edited 7th Jan '11 1:47:12 PM by Pykrete
This. Furthermore, death is the only punishment for murder that fits the crime.
However...
This. We have become so merciful that we spend enormous amounts of money letting convicted murderers appeal, out of fear of killing an innocent person. As a Christian, I wouldn't want to change this, because it would be a reversal of the historical process from more to less social violence.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardMy attitudes on this have pretty much all been said. While on the one hand I do think there are clearly a class of people beyond rehabilitation and who do not deserve a second (or third, fourth, etc) chance. However, the possibility of false punishment, and the amount of resources used to make sure that doesn't happen, put me ultimately opposed.
I only see capital 'punishment' as useful as a 'preventative' measure, e.g. you capture an enamy general who committed massive war crimes and will do so again if let freed, and an enemy army is nearby and advancing on your position retaking whatever base you captured the general at. You can' evacuate him as that would GUARANTEE he would be recaptured and you're in a Kessel of something - and can't break out or break through. You shoot him as the threat to your citizens is too great to let him live.
That was similar to the logic used in Windu killing Palpatine as Palpatine controlled the courts AND the senate guaranteeing he'd get free.
A;sp similar to the logic Trotsky used to kill all the Romanovs in the Russian Civil War - the White Armies were going to retake the palace the Romanovs were at and they couldn't move them or something, so they shot them.
WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!Life in prison would be worse then dying, really. And if there is a mistake you can always release the person. So yeah, not a big fan.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?I'm against capital punishment myself.
State sanctioned murder is still murder.
A more rehabilitation focused prison system coupled with targeting the issues within the society that lead to crime would be preferable to capital punishment.
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!I'm actually all for having prisoners given life sentences having the option to choose between life imprisonment or death, although I realise that there are a lot of problems with such an approach.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.The problem I have with calling it state sanctioned murder is that its a misuse of terms. Murder, is be definition, an illegal killing.
I'm for it since its rare that criminals make something of themselves and them being dead is better for the rest of society. Even in prison they find ways of being criminals.
Ian:
There are some people who are impossible to rehabilitate. More than just isolated cases once every blue moon. It's quite common to come across people who will re-offend if given the chance. Child rapists and serial killers to name two are among the most common of these types. You can't teach them differently, you can't change who they are at that point.
By committing those kinds of crimes, their lives become forfeit.
The problem is, though, can you be absolutely, 100% sure that you won't accidentally execute an innocent man or woman? If you can't, then I think it's not acceptable. And even if you could, it would likely be so expensive that simply keeping him/her in prison for life would be less expensive.
edited 7th Jan '11 1:46:31 PM by Linhasxoc
Like the issue of having the science to detect sociopaths before they do harm and NOT locking them up or killing them?
Because in all honesty we don't have the best track record on these things.
@Major Tom
As Linhasxoc mentioned you'd need to be 100% sure that you wouldn't execute the wrong person.
Also whilst it doesn't account for 100% of the child rapist/murderer population what about those who have mental disorders, as they could be changed.
Those that don't respond to the rehabilitation stay in prison.
@Rottweiler
They wouldn't be guilty of anything till they committed a crime, but better education towards mental health would help.
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!We've gotten a lot better about death row convictions!
Still, there are definitely people who we are 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt swear on your maiden aunt's grave sure commited such and such heinous act of nausea-inducing depravity. And to them I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
edited 7th Jan '11 2:11:47 PM by Bur
^^ The problem with that, I suppose, is that you can't use that kind of thing in a sentence. You can't sentence on personal certainty, even if that certainty is shared by everyone else, because it's not legally admissible.
edited 7th Jan '11 2:17:32 PM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.Or you could channel those same resources and manpower into preventing similar cases in dozens of people nowhere near that far gone who are significantly more likely to be receptive to it.
Although there is no "cure" for sociopathy however killing the person is not the answer, as say what you like I'm all for human rights.
@Pykrete
So those who are mentally ill and not acting of sound mind due to mental illness should just be left even if they were treatable?
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

So I'm arguing this topic in a class of mine, so I thought I'd get some opinions here. What do you guys think of the death penalty? Is it right? Should we have it? Discuss.
"I could go on listing the stupid design decisions... so I will!" — Yahtzee's job description