The Death Penalty

Yes

By all those perspectives

Curiosity demands to know why nitrogen-based gas chambers aren't yet in common use among the places where the death penalty is still applied.

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

You said it yourself.

"Gas chambers".

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

I presume it's mostly inertia. There's little political gain in reforming the death penalty — the people who don't like it just want it gone entirely, and the people who do like it largely see brutality as a feature (pour encourager de les autres) rather than a bug.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Tehran had executed Navid Afkari for killing someone during the wave of anti-government protests. Lawyers who studied his case said prosecutors didn't provide "accurate" evidence of him doing it.

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/man-acquitted-again-of-drug-trafficking-escapes-death-penalty-13119754

An interesting acquitall in Singapore.

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"

The death penalty isn't about justice, it's about Human Sacrifice. You're depriving a person of their life in order to appease the public's animalistic desire to see someone suffer for the things that make them angry. But even ignoring the fact that putting someone to death properly is more expensive than life in prison, it hasn't been shown to be effective against crime, and almost all methods employed are, to put it bluntly, horrific, the fact is that our justice system is not perfect, nor will it ever be. As long as the death penalty is a thing, we will inevitably kill innocent people. We have, in fact: The advent of DNA testing has allowed us to solve many previously unsolved cases, exonerating countless former suspects, including ones that had already been executed. And while someone who's been sentenced to life without parole can be let go if we find out they didn't do it, there's no way to un-execute someone.

I am not a squid.

We already got a death penalty and it works. It's called life imprisonment. Growing old can hurt, and be a painful process. So we ain't got no need for capital punishment when we already have a natural one that does the job just fine.

I mean, I'd argue that keeping someone in prison for longer than 20 some years isn't very humane-at least an execution is quick. Having said that, I actually consider this a good argument against the death penalty. I think for most crimes that would get someone sentenced to death, a better punishment would be "life in solitary confinement", at least if you're going for suffering.

With miscarriages of justice, I'd say it's worth considering that you can still sentence someone to life and then find out after their death that they were innocent. The life sentence is just a slower death penalty. I will concede it has the benefit that you have more time to reconsider at the very least, though.

For the record, I'm overall largely ambivalent towards the death penalty rather than particularly for or against it.

Edited by Protagonist506 on Dec 19th 2020 at 11:23:38 AM

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Prolonged solitary confinement is like torture an inhumane punishment and thus can not be a replacement for the death penalty.

"Solitary" is worse. In just in a high security prison however, sure. Prisoners convicted of those types of crimes tend to live longer on death row and its cheaper tbh after all the appeals and yada mandated for Death Row.

Yeah, no. There's a difference between somebody reaching the end of a natural life span and being put to death.

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

It may also depend under which conditions someone is imprisoned for life. There seem to be a shocking difference between the treatment of prisoners in the USA and in Europe. I can somewhat understand than being imprisoned for life like this is similar to a death sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOmcP9sMwIE&t=509s

Can one be assured someone doesn't go sod this and break out, either by himself or through outside help (think how slippery El Chapo had been)? That's been another argument against life imprisonment as the ultimate sanction, especially against the worst of the worst (the old "If Hitler/bin Laden had been taken alive, how would you deal with him?").

High security prison escapes are such a rarity in the developed world that it’s not really a worth consideration. In countries with less secure prison systems it’s a valid argument, but it’s also one that isn’t permanent, as the prison system can be bought up to the needed level of security.

As for how we’d hold the worst of the worst, there’s already a prison for war criminals, I’m pretty sure there’s never been an escape.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 4th 2021 at 7:12:13 PM

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

You could make the case for the death penalty as prevention in a fictional setting where people habe superpowers and villains are dangerous enough that they pose a great threat to others, are difficult to keep safe and are risky to catch. But neither Saddam Hussein nor Heinrich Himmler Chapo are overtly dangerous by themselves, and can be kept reasonably safe in prisons.

Imprisoning someone like All for One in My Hero Academia or Lex Luthor however does sound like a terrible idea.

Perhaps also mafiosi like these that Italy subjects to the Article 41-bis prison regime, i.e these that are dangerous even in prisons.

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

A rarity relative to say an innocent execution? I ask because just as an innocent being executed is a miscarriage of justice, so too can a guilty killer who is left to break out and kill again. And as long as a killer remains alive, there's always the risk of a breakout, which is not unheard of (recall the breakout from a New York maximum-security facility just a few years back). So I'm saying it can go both ways; too strict is bad, but so can too lax.

Actually, I would say that it's more likely someone will be wrongfully executed than that a serial killer will break out of jail. In fact, it's probably not even close. That's uh, the thing comic books always get wrong: it's really, really hard to break out of maximum security prisons, practically never happens.

To be fair, I would say a more serious concern is the ability of such people to commit homicide while in jail. I'm unsure if this seriously merits the death penalty, but I'd say it's least something to consider.

For what it's worth, I'm fairly ambivalent to the death penalty. I'm semi-opposed, but less on any moral grounds and more because I think it causes unnecessary psychological harm to the executioners and it tends to cost a lot of government money in practice (more than it does to lock them up for the rest of their lives). Stuff like that.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Well

• Costs far more money then just keeping a dude locked up for life.
• The sheer amount of appeals yo make it fair means it takes years and tons of back and forth with lawyers in both sides in appeals.
• Plenty of innocent people end up executed any way.

• I don't believe a government should have the ability to kill it's own citizens in general.

Even If I do think some people really are evil enough to deserve it. I can't approve of it being used.

"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."

As for me, my current stance is that it's not needed in most instances, but the provision should still remain for the absolute worst of the worst (eg. crimes against humanity such as mass murder/genocide). Maybe for murders committed after already serving life (killing in prison or after an escape), but I can live without that provision. So, in a nutshell, it should be there but used so rarely that its application should be considered noteworthy.

I'm actually not opposed to using the death penalty for "Crimes against Humanity" and the like, but I'd also say those are very special cases. Also, I don't think you're likely to have a situation where a person is falsely accused of genocide and turned out to be a perfectly innocent little lamb. It's not like your average citizen is gonna find their lives ruined when out of the blue, they get unexpectedly accused of genocide and crimes for humanity.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

This is basically my take as well.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I got little issue with capital sentences for people who perpetrate crimes against humanity. One thing though, they often have accomplices who are actively involved in their atrocities but pretend to be simply following orders or less (as with many Nazis) and this ploy becomes easier when the boss is swinging from the gallows and can no longer contradict. So it's not entirely innocuous.

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

Yeah with crimes against humanity it may be useful to keep convicted people alive so that they can still be interrogated as to their accomplices.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran