The Death Penality, Old Age, Denial and Lifer Violence

[Winston Blake]

Then don't strawman my position with bullshit appeal to emotion attacks. I stated that I don't believe that the death penalty can be practically applied on any sort of scale within any current system of governance.

I'm actually directing my arguments primarily towards the OP, you just happened to come along and start making false criticisms of my position.

But the abstract of the death penalty, the question of whether or not we could take another human life in punishment for crimes we as society deem to horrible to allow the perpetrator to live is a very different beast and one that most anti-death penalty arguers like to ignore.

OK, so despite the fact that it's a mini-hijack, let's talk about a hypothetical society where the justice system is completely perfect. Let me summarise the thrust of your position:

Personally, I support the death penalty in abstract. It establishes a line in the sand, by which we delineate humanity from that which we deem is inhuman.
[...]
This is what I believe is the source of justification for killing someone. The idea that as a society we must place certain morals as so high that we will kill to see them preserved.

1. Why does a line strictly have to be drawn in the first place, and who gets to quantify it? I'm not being snarky, I really don't understand why you think we need a moral system to define whether or not someone is human. It's hard to tell because you have a rather poetic style.

2. How does killing a lifer 'preserve' these high morals? It's not defending against a wild animal - it's killing somebody who's already been neutralised.

That is exactly the reason I oppose the death penalty in practice. I was stating a hypothetical case where there's basically no reasonable doubt at all that the guy is guilty (say, 50 independent witnesses and it's caught on videotape).

In the spirit of your hypothetical, I'll assume you're also including no corruption or errors on the part of the people involved in the case.

In that case I don't personally see why the death penalty should be off the table, as the most cost-effective and reliable means of making sure the guy never gets to hurt anyone again.

For me personally the reliability factor is more important than the cost factor. No matter how good the prison there's always the chance that he may somehow escape and kill again. You don't have to worry about that when he's a skeleton (barring a literal miracle).

If you're allowed to propose a case with zero questionable evidence, zero corruption and zero errors, then I should be allowed to propose a prison which has zero chance of escape.

[Junghalli]

If you're allowed to propose a case with zero questionable evidence, zero corruption and zero errors, then I should be allowed to propose a prison which has zero chance of escape.

Well, I'm not sure I'd make the threshold quite that tight. You can have some questionable evidence or errors and still have something any sane person would consider an open and shut case.

Personally my view is the death penalty need not necessarily be completely off the table but it should be extremely rare and reserved only for cases where the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

[Winston Blake]

If you're allowed to propose a case with zero questionable evidence, zero corruption and zero errors, then I should be allowed to propose a prison which has zero chance of escape.

Well, I'm not sure I'd make the threshold quite that tight. You can have some questionable evidence or errors and still have something any sane person would consider an open and shut case.

Still, those 'zero's can be replaced with 'adequately little'.

Personally my view is the death penalty need not necessarily be completely off the table but it should be extremely rare and reserved only for cases where the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

There's also the bit about 'no hope of rehabilitation'. Or more generally, no hope of being made useful to society somehow, like the old 'making number plates in prison' thing.

I'm trying to think of a person who can't be made useful, yet isn't criminally insane (and so should be locked up in an institution for those people). That is, if somebody knows what they're doing, then we should be able to wring some work out of them. Can you think of an example?

[Junghalli]

Well, personally I don't see why being insane should necessarily automatically disqualify you from the death penalty, but that has something to do with my take on the point of having a death penalty. I don't see it as a question of punishment, I see it as being like putting down a dangerous rabid animal (or a dangerous rabid human, in this case). Punishment is irrelevant, it's about preventing a dangerous creature from hurting any more people, in the most reliable and efficient manner possible.

[Winston Blake]

Well, personally I don't see why being insane should necessarily automatically disqualify you from the death penalty, but that has something to do with my take on the point of having a death penalty. I don't see it as a question of punishment, I see it as being like putting down a dangerous rabid animal (or a dangerous rabid human, in this case). Punishment is irrelevant, it's about preventing a dangerous creature from hurting any more people, in the most reliable and efficient manner possible.

Hmmm. This is really taking guilt out and basing things on how dangerous a person is. I know you used 'rabid' metaphorically, but a rabid human really is very dangerous and totally un-rehabilitate-able. Do you also advocate putting down anyone with such a disease/disorder? (Including if they would have otherwise lived to their natural age.)

[Winston Blake]

Correction: "(Including if they would still live to their natural age.)"

[Junghalli]

Hmmm. This is really taking guilt out and basing things on how dangerous a person is.

Basically, although I'd also factor in the chances of a false verdict and the possibility of rehabilitation. Hence why I say I would be in favor of it only in cases where the evidence was overwhelming.

I know you used 'rabid' metaphorically, but a rabid human really is very dangerous and totally un-rehabilitate-able. Do you also advocate putting down anyone with such a disease/disorder? (Including if they would have otherwise lived to their natural age.)

If it was totally incurable, possibly. A lot would depend on exactly how dangerous they were. I don't know much about the symptoms of rabies but (correct me if I'm wrong) I've always had the impression if probably renders a person too brain-burned to be much of a threat if basic proper precautions are taken. I'd be much more worried about a highly intelligent and calculating criminal than someone who'll spend the rest of his life banging his head against a padded wall.

Also, to be honest I'd be more inclined toward compassion with someone with a physical disease because they probably can't chose whether or not to be psycho. "Sane" murderers have made a conscious choice and chose to do evil, when they were in full possession of their faculties and knew the consequences of their acts. This is probably more an emotional feeling than a logical decision.

[Winston Blake]

Hmmm. This is really taking guilt out and basing things on how dangerous a person is.

Basically, although I'd also factor in the chances of a false verdict and the possibility of rehabilitation. Hence why I say I would be in favor of it only in cases where the evidence was overwhelming.

Yep, we're still in that hypothetical.

If it was totally incurable, possibly. A lot would depend on exactly how dangerous they were. I don't know much about the symptoms of rabies but (correct me if I'm wrong) I've always had the impression if probably renders a person too brain-burned to be much of a threat if basic proper precautions are taken. I'd be much more worried about a highly intelligent and calculating criminal than someone who'll spend the rest of his life banging his head against a padded wall.

I thought rabies made people very paranoid, hallucinatory and aggressive, to the point where there's no choice but to restrain them. Wikipedia tells me that this is only true in the later part - initially they're just delirious and 'brain-burned'.

An intelligent and calculating criminal is probably more capable of skilled work that can be 'encouraged' by a prison.

Also, to be honest I'd be more inclined toward compassion with someone with a physical disease because they probably can't chose whether or not to be psycho. "Sane" murderers have made a conscious choice and chose to do evil, when they were in full possession of their faculties and knew the consequences of their acts. This is probably more an emotional feeling than a logical decision.

So assuming the criminally insane aren't executed, then we have sane 100% guilty lifers who are kept alive for work, and insane ones who are sent away to the padded cells and restraint beds. Execution isn't necessary.

It's interesting though - I'm not actually sure what the least harmful option is for a totally guilty, useless, criminally insane person. Perhaps it's valid to consider their treatment as an extension of how we treat useless, insane people who aren't criminals. That is, as such people become more and more uncontrollable, we simply restrain them more heavily. As it extends into the range of criminal acts (destruction of property, assault, murdering an orderly), we just have to further increase the desired level of restraint. This gives a precedent for how we should respond to a similarly insane person appearing in the general population. Treat them in a similar way - segregated and appropriately restrained.

[Broomstick]

If it was totally incurable, possibly. A lot would depend on exactly how dangerous they were. I don't know much about the symptoms of rabies but (correct me if I'm wrong) I've always had the impression if probably renders a person too brain-burned to be much of a threat if basic proper precautions are taken. I'd be much more worried about a highly intelligent and calculating criminal than someone who'll spend the rest of his life banging his head against a padded wall.

Rabies in humans takes one of two forms: either the person is rendered near comatose and is of little danger, or else it drives them into a fury in which, yes, they will attack, even bite and infect others.

Where sedatives are not available one common method of dealing with the problem is to securely tie the person to a tree so they can't harm others. I have no doubt that killings also occur if the person can't be restrained.

Where modern medical care is available sedation into a coma is the usual treatment, although last I heard they were still trying for a repeat of the Wisconsin Protocol success. That, however, is a very recent development.

[Junghalli]

I thought rabies made people very paranoid, hallucinatory and aggressive, to the point where there's no choice but to restrain them. Wikipedia tells me that this is only true in the later part - initially they're just delirious and 'brain-burned'.

I don't know much of anything about rabies symptoms but "hallucinatory and agressive to the point you have to restrain them" doesn't sound like the sort of person who's ever likely to get out prison. They'll be too busy trying to fight the dancing cockroaches eating their skin to actually work out any kind of escape plan. I'd be much worried about somebody who was still in possession of all their mental faculties.

An intelligent and calculating criminal is probably more capable of skilled work that can be 'encouraged' by a prison.

I see it as more an issue of likelyhood of escape than usefulness. The way I see it's a question of making sure they'll never have an opportunity to harm a human being again, in the most reliable way possible (taking into account the mitigating factors I already mentioned). Also on the economic front

1) They'll probably be used in unskilled labor and we already have plenty of that.

2) Will they actually be a net gain on society making license plates or something like that? Now I admit I have no hard figures for how much it costs to run a prison, but I'll bet that per head keeping a prisoner alive and containing them is rather costly. I think even if you put them to work it's quite possible it'd still be a net loss to society in economic terms. Then again, slavery was historically fairly profitable, so I could be wrong.

So assuming the criminally insane aren't executed, then we have sane 100% guilty lifers who are kept alive for work, and insane ones who are sent away to the padded cells and restraint beds. Execution isn't necessary.

No, I never said it was strictly necessary. Just more reliable and efficient.

[Winston Blake]

I thought rabies made people very paranoid, hallucinatory and aggressive, to the point where there's no choice but to restrain them. Wikipedia tells me that this is only true in the later part - initially they're just delirious and 'brain-burned'.

I don't know much of anything about rabies symptoms but "hallucinatory and agressive to the point you have to restrain them" doesn't sound like the sort of person who's ever likely to get out prison. They'll be too busy trying to fight the dancing cockroaches eating their skin to actually work out any kind of escape plan. I'd be much worried about somebody who was still in possession of all their mental faculties.

Remember, the point I was trying to make is that if you can't use this hypothetical ultra-criminal in the prison work system I suggested in my first post, then they're pretty much insane and aren't fit for prison time or execution anyway.

I see it as more an issue of likelyhood of escape than usefulness. The way I see it's a question of making sure they'll never have an opportunity to harm a human being again, in the most reliable way possible (taking into account the mitigating factors I already mentioned).

You would probably only need one small super-duper-max prison to hold all of the occurrences of this rare, 100% guilty ultra-crim, with negligible chance of escape.

Also on the economic front

1) They'll probably be used in unskilled labor and we already have plenty of that.

Rather than them giving us what we need, I see it as more a matter of taking from them what can be taken. It's making them pay their debt to society by contributing the most useful work they're capable of.

2) Will they actually be a net gain on society making license plates or something like that? Now I admit I have no hard figures for how much it costs to run a prison, but I'll bet that per head keeping a prisoner alive and containing them is rather costly. I think even if you put them to work it's quite possible it'd still be a net loss to society in economic terms. Then again, slavery was historically fairly profitable, so I could be wrong.

I don't have any numbers, but I feel it would be profitable, much like slavery.

So assuming the criminally insane aren't executed, then we have sane 100% guilty lifers who are kept alive for work, and insane ones who are sent away to the padded cells and restraint beds. Execution isn't necessary.

No, I never said it was strictly necessary. Just more reliable and efficient.

I meant 'thus execution doesn't occur'. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the risk of escape, however small, is worth forfeiting the potential work they could have paid back. My view of a top prison is somewhere where there's a negligible chance of escape - with modern technology, I don't see why a prison can't be made utterly unescapable.

Now, I can consider some craphole developing country with Swiss cheese prisons that still manages to have the 'perfect certainty of guilt' that we've been working under. In that case, yes, I can see your point that the death penalty would be the best option. Although this would be pretty rare in reality, to say the least.

[Junghalli]

Well, if you could show that it's actually more efficient to keep the prisoner alive and there's an essentially nil chance of escape then yes, execution may be a less favorable alternative.