[split] Death penalty for child molestors?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Say it ain't so.

Gasp

There are others like those two as well. To say we have never wrongfully executed a man is utter bullshit.

I'm frankly stunned that he would have the audacity to say such a thing in the first place. At the very least, he should have qualified his statement to say "to the best of my knowledge" or something.

As for the idea that forensic techniques have made wrongful convictions impossible, that's hard to believe. Especially when eyewitness testimony is still considered devastating evidence.

Well, fair enough, I'll concede that state of facts. Nonetheless, in a case where there is no doubt that the guy is guilty, I see no ethical reason why we cannot have them executed by the state.

Because all it does is cause more suffering and pain, and that there are better ways to run a justice system? There is certainly that. It is a moral choice you know.

[Darth Wong]

Well, fair enough, I'll concede that state of facts. Nonetheless, in a case where there is no doubt that the guy is guilty, I see no ethical reason why we cannot have them executed by the state.

Assuming we accept this scenario of no doubt, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on legality rather than ethics, and given that the Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishment, I really don't see why the death penalty might not be struck down across the board someday.

Of course, you could say that killing someone is not cruel or unusual. It's a somewhat subjective argument when you boil it down. Nevertheless, like it or not, the state is constrained by rules which criminals themselves do not live by. Criminals do cruel and unusual things, and the state is constrained not to do cruel and unusual things in retaliation, even if we might wish it, and even if we might not have any particular ethical qualms about it. The idea that justice must be symmetrical is explicitly denied by the constitution.

[Master of Ossus]

Assuming we accept this scenario of no doubt, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on legality rather than ethics, and given that the Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishment, I really don't see why the death penalty might not be struck down across the board someday.

But "cruel and unusual punishment" is a function of social moral norms. When California's Supreme Court attempted to effectively do away with capital punishment, they became so unpopular that several justices were recalled only a few years ago.

Of course, you could say that killing someone is not cruel or unusual. It's a somewhat subjective argument when you boil it down. Nevertheless, like it or not, the state is constrained by rules which criminals themselves do not live by. Criminals do cruel and unusual things, and the state is constrained not to do cruel and unusual things in retaliation, even if we might wish it, and even if we might not have any particular ethical qualms about it. The idea that justice must be symmetrical is explicitly denied by the constitution.

True, but since I do not view execution as cruel or unusual, and moreover do not require symmetric punishments (only what is viewed as morally acceptable by a jury of peers), I do not have a legal or ethical problem with this system of justice.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I find that the 8th amendment by itself is sufficient cause for us to ban the death penalty . Strapping someone down and forcing them to consciously die for no reason is cruel punishment. Allowing someone to live out the rest of their life in a setting where they are controlled enough to prevent harm to society is not cruel or unusual.

Why do you continue to be so incredibly stupid? Since when is "1st degree murder", "mass murder", and "serial slaying" no reason?

That's only a reason if you accept "Eye for an eye" as valid reasoning, which is a bad idea, considering the fact that it came from a legal system that believed throwing people into a river was a fair trial.

A lot of people seem to see punishment as a matter of fairness, or some divine moral law. But in reality punishment is just a form of conditioning. We punish prisoners so that people in society or conditioned to associate the crime with a negative consequence, and therefore will be less likely to do it.

In such a case there's no reason why the punishment has to "fit" the crime, so long as the punishment deters the crime. In this case, both life imprisonment and execution work equally well. As Alyrium has already shown, the people who commit these crimes are very mentally ill, and might not even be affected by conditioning. And even if the person is significantly deterred by conditioning, both the death penalty and life imprisonment are severe enough consequences so as to condition the potential criminal and offset any reasonable reward.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Punishment is not effective at conditioning even sane people. Intermittent positive reinforcement, after an initial period of very consistent positive reinforcement is most effective. You want to reward good behavior, not punish bad behavior. A justice system should act to reform the criminals that can be reformed, and protect society from the ones that cannot be with the minimum possible cruelty. And no, simple confinement in a safe, humane environment is not cruel. If treatment is possible for those that ARE mentally ill (like serial killers and child molesters) it should be done, and if not, means should be sought by which it can be done eventually.

We should try to eek some good out of a bad situation,not make it worse.

[Yogi]

OK, quick question: Exactly HOW do we determine "guilty without a doubt"? We can say what we want about physical evidence being required. Hell, we can say that Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Jar Jar Binks need to descend from heaven in copper chariots drawn by Solid Snake clones and declare the person Guilty for all the good it will do. It still won't stop unethical prosecutors from manipulating dumb-ass jurors in voting "Yes".

[General Zod]

That's only a reason if you accept "Eye for an eye" as valid reasoning, which is a bad idea, considering the fact that it came from a legal system that believed throwing people into a river was a fair trial.

Except if you'd actually bothered paying attention to this thread at all, nobody's been arguing in favor of "eye for an eye". The only reason the death penalty should be used is to remove a dangerous, uncontrollable element from society who has no redeemable value.

A lot of people seem to see punishment as a matter of fairness, or some divine moral law. But in reality punishment is just a form of conditioning. We punish prisoners so that people in society or conditioned to associate the crime with a negative consequence, and therefore will be less likely to do it.

So punishment is set to show that actions have consequences? No fucking shit sherlock.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Except if you'd actually bothered paying attention to this thread at all, nobody's been arguing in favor of "eye for an eye". The only reason the death penalty should be used is to remove a dangerous, uncontrollable element from society who has no redeemable value.

Except that very few people have no redeemable value, and even if they dont, removal from the larger society is sufficient for that.

[Darth Wong]

Except if you'd actually bothered paying attention to this thread at all, nobody's been arguing in favor of "eye for an eye". The only reason the death penalty should be used is to remove a dangerous, uncontrollable element from society who has no redeemable value.

Actually, most of the arguments have been along the lines of "it seems subjectively right to me".

[General Zod]

Punishment is not effective at conditioning even sane people. Intermittent positive reinforcement, after an initial period of very consistent positive reinforcement is most effective. You want to reward good behavior, not punish bad behavior. A justice system should act to reform the criminals that can be reformed, and protect society from the ones that cannot be with the minimum possible cruelty. And no, simple confinement in a safe, humane environment is not cruel. If treatment is possible for those that ARE mentally ill (like serial killers and child molesters) it should be done, and if not, means should be sought by which it can be done eventually.

We should try to eek some good out of a bad situation,not make it worse.

If no death penalty is in place, what deterrent is there to prevent someone from saying "fuck this" and killing whoever he has to in order to escape? The worst they'll be able to do to him is simply lock him up again without an option for the death penalty.

Except that very few people have no redeemable value, and even if they dont, removal from the larger society is sufficient for that.

The death penalty is somewhat more effective at removing them from larger society and making sure they can't hurt anyone else.

[hongi]

No it isn't. Better dead than suffering decades of confinement for no reason.

As Broomstick asked last page, why not let them choose if they would rather be executed if they'd prefer that to life imprisonment than simply assume everyone would rather die than spend life in prison?

I'm going to third this.

[Big Phil]

That's only a reason if you accept "Eye for an eye" as valid reasoning, which is a bad idea, considering the fact that it came from a legal system that believed throwing people into a river was a fair trial.

Except if you'd actually bothered paying attention to this thread at all, nobody's been arguing in favor of "eye for an eye". The only reason the death penalty should be used is to remove a dangerous, uncontrollable element from society who has no redeemable value.

What thread are you reading fucknut? On page 1, Zed Snardbody advocates the death penalty for violet rapes, and Rogue 9 agrees with him in the very next post:

I'm personally in favor of expanding the death penalty to all violent sexual crime.

That goes way beyond "eye for an eye."

A lot of people seem to see punishment as a matter of fairness, or some divine moral law. But in reality punishment is just a form of conditioning. We punish prisoners so that people in society or conditioned to associate the crime with a negative consequence, and therefore will be less likely to do it.

So punishment is set to show that actions have consequences? No fucking shit sherlock.

Do you have personal issue with Zoidberg? While obvious, there is nothing wrong or incorrect about his comment. Seems like you're just being a bitch 'cause you don't like him for some reason.

[Broomstick]

I have no doubt that there ARE a certain number of suicides among death row inmates... although I have no statistics to back that up. I wonder if the numbers are out there?

[Big Phil]

If no death penalty is in place, what deterrent is there to prevent someone from saying "fuck this" and killing whoever he has to in order to escape? The worst they'll be able to do to him is simply lock him up again without an option for the death penalty.

What was the incidence of violent escape attempts in the U.S between 1972 and 1976? Was it higher or lower than before/after?

[General Zod]

Do you have personal issue with Zoidberg? While obvious, there is nothing wrong or incorrect about his comment. Seems like you're just being a bitch 'cause you don't like him for some reason.

I could ask the same about you fucknugget. This is the third fucking thread or so in recent memory you seem to have specifically gone after me instead of bothering to attack anyone else directly.

[Big Phil]

If no death penalty is in place, what deterrent is there to prevent someone from saying "fuck this" and killing whoever he has to in order to escape? The worst they'll be able to do to him is simply lock him up again without an option for the death penalty.

What was the incidence of violent escape attempts in the U.S between 1972 and 1976? Was it higher or lower than before/after?

For that matter, what is the incidence of violent escape attempts in the following states, compared with the rest of the country?

Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

[18-Till-I-Die]

I have no doubt that there ARE a certain number of suicides among death row inmates... although I have no statistics to back that up. I wonder if the numbers are out there?

This begs the question:

How many killed themselves because of the isolation, and how many because they knew they were going to die anyway.

Or worse, knew they were innocent but had no way to prove it.


(i'm adressing this because of the people saying that "imprisonment is inhuman" and all that)

[Darth Wong]

The best argument for the death penalty I've heard is not one I've heard in this thread, and it is simply that social respect for the law is increased when there is a perception that the justice system is swift and harsh. When social respect for the law is increased, then the theory is that general social obedience increases, hence there is some practical value to appeasing the general population's prejudices and instincts when it comes to punishment.

Of course, that is a rather pragmatic way to look at it, while most people in these kinds of threads tend to throw moral absolutes about. Also, it doesn't have all the good words like "rights" and "liberty" or "justice".

[Alyrium Denryle]

If no death penalty is in place, what deterrent is there to prevent someone from saying "fuck this" and killing whoever he has to in order to escape? The worst they'll be able to do to him is simply lock him up again without an option for the death penalty.

Your point is? First off, you make THAT amazingly difficult. Sedative gases being able to be piped into a room in the event of a violent incident, etc.

Even in cases where there IS the death penalty, that is not much of a deterrent, in fact I imagine when the stakes are that high, they will be more likely to attempt to kill to escape.

The death penalty is somewhat more effective at removing them from larger society and making sure they can't hurt anyone else.

What is the rate of escapes in prisons? Is it a relevant number? Considering that people are on death row for upwards of a decade awaiting their execution, I fail to see how your argument has weight. Especially because the death penalty does not deter crime outside of the prison and is an ineffective measure in other more important respects.

[Big Phil]

The best argument for the death penalty I've heard is not one I've heard in this thread, and it is simply that social respect for the law is increased when there is a perception that the justice system is swift and harsh. When social respect for the law is increased, then the theory is that general social obedience increases, hence there is some practical value to appeasing the general population's prejudices and instincts when it comes to punishment.

Of course, that is a rather pragmatic way to look at it, while most people in these kinds of threads tend to throw moral absolutes about. Also, it doesn't have all the good words like "rights" and "liberty" or "justice".

Is there any evidence for this theory? As in unbiased evidence looking at data? I've heard a lot of "statistics" thrown out about the cost of executing someone vs. keeping them in prison, but I can't say I've ever seen evidence supporting (or opposing) this theory.

[Darth Wong]

Is there any evidence for this theory? As in unbiased evidence looking at data? I've heard a lot of "statistics" thrown out about the cost of executing someone vs. keeping them in prison, but I can't say I've ever seen evidence supporting (or opposing) this theory.

Not anything that couldn't be criticized for weaknesses in conclusion, although the most oft-cited case study is the fact that Turkey has an extremely low crime rate to go with its extremely harsh justice system.

Still the best argument I've heard though. The rest of them tend to suffer from either subjectivism (ie- "I just think it's good") or really obvious philosophical contortionism.

[CaptainZoidberg]

The best argument for the death penalty I've heard is not one I've heard in this thread, and it is simply that social respect for the law is increased when there is a perception that the justice system is swift and harsh. When social respect for the law is increased, then the theory is that general social obedience increases, hence there is some practical value to appeasing the general population's prejudices and instincts when it comes to punishment.

Why should I respect the system just because it's swift and harsh. A police officer shooting anyone that looks like a trouble-doer is the ultimate in swiftness and harshness, but I don't think that police officer is going to get a lot of respect from society.

I respect the law because it is fair, defendants are given due process, and suffering is minimized. Given that democracy and due process go hand in hand, it's no leap of logic to say that people prefer the long wait and uncertainty of due process over the "swiftness" that you're talking about.

Of course, that is a rather pragmatic way to look at it, while most people in these kinds of threads tend to throw moral absolutes about. Also, it doesn't have all the good words like "rights" and "liberty" or "justice".

Nah, I think that your outlook of "How will the populace react?" adds nicely to the mix of utilitarian arguments that we have.

[Big Phil]

Is there any evidence for this theory? As in unbiased evidence looking at data? I've heard a lot of "statistics" thrown out about the cost of executing someone vs. keeping them in prison, but I can't say I've ever seen evidence supporting (or opposing) this theory.

Not anything that couldn't be criticized for weaknesses in conclusion, although the most oft-cited case study is the fact that Turkey has an extremely low crime rate to go with its extremely harsh justice system.

Still the best argument I've heard though. The rest of them tend to suffer from either subjectivism (ie- "I just think it's good") or really obvious philosophical contortionism.

One could argue that (in the case of Turkey) the low crime rate is cultural more than it is a result of their justice system. I don't know that that's the case, but do comparisons of the Turkish justice system against (for example) the United Kingdom's take into account cultural, economic, or other differences?

[Lancer]

One could argue that (in the case of Turkey) the low crime rate is cultural more than it is a result of their justice system. I don't know that that's the case, but do comparisons of the Turkish justice system against (for example) the United Kingdom's take into account cultural, economic, or other differences?

That same argument could be used to cover the individual jurisdictions of the US, and the relative merits of capital punishment in each.

I noticed that a significant portion the states listed that don't have the death penalty are in the northeast or midwest regions.

[Broomstick]

One could argue that (in the case of Turkey) the low crime rate is cultural more than it is a result of their justice system. I don't know that that's the case, but do comparisons of the Turkish justice system against (for example) the United Kingdom's take into account cultural, economic, or other differences?

That same argument could be used to cover the individual jurisdictions of the US, and the relative merits of capital punishment in each.

I noticed that a significant portion the states listed that don't have the death penalty are in the northeast or midwest regions.

On the other hand, I wouldn't describe Alaska as "northeast or midwest".

I'd hypothesize that crime rate or urbanization might have and impact, but some of those northeastern states are highly urbanized, and Michigan has Detroit which has been "murder capital" more than once. Wisconsin had both Ed Gein (a major inspiration for Silence of the Lambs) and Jeffrey Dahmer.

I do wonder why some states go one way and others another.