The Death Penality, Old Age, Denial and Lifer Violence

[Darth Wong]

People on the anti-death-penalty side; what do you propose to do if and when we develop anti-aging treatments and people have indefinite lifespans?

Use virtually zero-cost self-maintaining and self-sustaining robotic prison systems on the Moon, in conjunction with Clockwork Orange-style psychological conditioning techniques to gradually make them as weak and harmless as a kitten.

Are you still going to lock people up 'for life' if a life can be centuries or millenia? Or are you going to deny them the anti-aging treatment and thus really implement Mr Bean's 'death by 50 years of aging' penalty? Or are you going to punish murder with just a few decades of imprisonment, quite possibly less than 10% or even 1% of an average lifespan?

If we're going to propose made-up technology, we might as well go all the way. Reducing the death rate for the entire population by orders of magnitude would create such an overnight Malthusian nightmare that prison policies would be the least of our problems.

[Dooey Jo]

Also, where did the idea that there's no such thing as a max sentence come from? As far as I know, most countries have life imprisonment (which usually do not last a lifetime, in case someone would still like to argue the retarded mortality = death penalty) as precisely that. You can't get "five life sentences". In fact, courts in the US sentencing someone to "a million years in prison for tax fraud" are frequently used as a source of hilarity around here. What's up with those things anyway? Can a single person get multiple death sentences too?

[CaptainZoidberg]

I absolutely hate the arguement that "executing someone is more expensive than keeping them alive for a lifetime".

What complete and utter bullshit. A non existent human does not consume the time and resources of an existent human being; decades worth of resources for keeping a human relatively alive comfortably is vastly more than the resources needed to execute them.

Of course, what they 'really' mean is that it's the costs of appeals, trials, reinvestigations, etc, etc that end up costing more than putting someone away for life.

It's a confirmation that so long as an individual is only going to be confined for the rest of their life (as Duchess has pointed out, an arguable form of psychological torture), the system will not invest the time and money to confirm their guilt or innocence to the degree they would in the other case.

So, if the anti death penalty people wish to assert that executing someone is more expensive than putting them away for life, they shoot themselves in the foot by admitting that locking someone up for the rest of their life means the justice system won't try as hard to determine their guilt or innocence.

No, you don't need to try as hard because you can always go back later and appeal the case if new evidence appears or a false conviction is revealed. You can't do that with the death penalty, so all of the possibilities need to be exhausted before the execution.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Also, where did the idea that there's no such thing as a max sentence come from? As far as I know, most countries have life imprisonment (which usually do not last a lifetime, in case someone would still like to argue the retarded mortality = death penalty) as precisely that. You can't get "five life sentences". In fact, courts in the US sentencing someone to "a million years in prison for tax fraud" are frequently used as a source of hilarity around here. What's up with those things anyway? Can a single person get multiple death sentences too?

In the US, you can be sentenced for 200 over years for killing quite a few people. So...?

I'd say 99% effective rehabilitation is at least as likely as humans attaining indefinite lifespans, so the pro-death penalty side might as well reconsider their premises in light of that hypothetical scenario.

And you were talking about perfect rehabilitation??? Consistency isn't your strongest point is it?

[Lancer]

It's a measure of insurance. For example, the DC snipers were tried at both the Federal and local levels, so that even if John Allen Muhammed's conviction in Virginia is overturned on appeal (extremely unlikey as that may be), he still faces convictions and sentences of life imprisonment in Maryland and DC.

[Broomstick]

Also, where did the idea that there's no such thing as a max sentence come from? As far as I know, most countries have life imprisonment (which usually do not last a lifetime, in case someone would still like to argue the retarded mortality = death penalty) as precisely that. You can't get "five life sentences". In fact, courts in the US sentencing someone to "a million years in prison for tax fraud" are frequently used as a source of hilarity around here. What's up with those things anyway? Can a single person get multiple death sentences too?

Yes, you can be sentenced to death multiple times if you commit capital crimes in multiple jurisdictions.

So, for example, you could be convicted in both Illinois and Texas and receive death sentences from both, while also receiving life without parole from, say, Wisconsin. If a conviction in one jurisdiction is overturned and/or reduced/pardoned/commuted you will still have to deal with the other jurisdictions.

[Yogi]

Yes it's that time of year again. Boys and girls, children of all ages, it's the Anti/Pro Death Penality thread, and rather than wading in with my own opinion on page 2 or 7 I'm going to make them the very purpose of this thread.

I have two main statements which I will now make for the Pro-Death Penalty side.

1. All Nations of the World already have the Death Penalty
In any justice system where it is possible to sentance someone to more than one hundred years of prison time, there exists a default death penalty. That death penalty is a slow one. As age is not a quick killer, but it is no less effective than the chair, the lethal injection or the firing squad in ensuring death. Perhaps not quick, perhaps not painless, but dead non the less. If you for whatever crime sentance a man to a prison term twenty years longer than an optimistic projection says he will live, then you have sentance him to die in jail, ten, thirty or fifty years down the road. If a forty year old man gets a one hundred year sentance with no parole for kidnapping and rapping a child, then you have sentances your murder to death by old age while telling yourself that he is simply being put in prison.

Why? Do you expect him to be able to be released at some point? All you've done is decided that this man shall die, but die years from now with the best medical treatment trying to keep him alive and living all his days, eating and sleeping with materials and buildings provided by the public as tax. This man will never be release if he is guilty, if he is innocent perhaps, but if you are opposed to the death penality on grounds an Innocent man might be killed in placed of a guilty one stay tuned for point two.

Please note this is not a debate on the merits of what kind of death penalty enforcement technique one uses, be it lethal injection, gas chamber, electric chair, firing squad or shark tank, this is a discussion on the very issue of the death penalty itself.

Everyone dies. The people who are imprisoned for life dies, just as someone free dies. However, the quality of life for someone imprisoned is vastly diminished. That is the real punishment. If you equate low quality of life with death, then at what point does it "break even" where the decreased quality of life makes it equal to death? If someone in Random-Third-World-Shitholeistan is suffering under the same horrid quality of life, would you kill that person to put him/her out of their misery?

2. Without a death penalty, what to do with someone who commits a Capital offense who is already in jail for committing another Capital offense.

Throw into Google Search, "Life in Prison Inmate Kills" and you'll find a few hundred cases of people in jail killing guards, fellow-inmates or sometimes even visitors. What do you... anti-death penalty folks believe should be done with such people. You can assume they are already in a maximum security prison, what with being in jail for life. Perhaps they had the possibility of parole, perhaps not. But what do you do to a man(Or woman) who already knows they will be spending the rest of their life in jail? Put him in a meaner jail? Chances are there not staying at the Hilton as it is. Lock them in solitary for the rest of their life? Human's can't take that or they go insane... in more likely in our example more insane.

What do you do with a inmate who is already in jail for the remainder of their adult life and kills again? You can't make their punishment worse, your stuck their is no other punishment option you can exercise except to hope that the guards will "be forced to shoot the prisoner trying to escape" thus again letting you tell yourselves your hands are clean.

I disagree. There are many ways to make someone's life more or less pleasant. It's not simply "free" or "not free". It isn't even "solitary confinement", "jailed", or "free". There are many perks and privileges that can be added or removed to increase or decrease someone's quality of life, while still separating them from society.



Furthermore, all imprisonment does is mean a person is separated from the rest of society. It doesn't mean the person cannot be useful, or that the separation is absolute.

[Knife]

As I have stated in another thread, the only moral justification for killing another human being is self defense. If we can safely confine someone then we have no moral justification to execute them. If we can't confine them then, for the protection/defense of society at large we do have a moral justification to impose a death penalty.

If you accept morals and ethics as societally derived (as opposed to god or some such) then you can make the argument that a sociopath or psychopath is a threat to society and thus executing them is self defense, as long as it's after the fact of them harming society.

I'm not seeing how confinement is an adequate solution to a threat to society ( properly proven and clearly stated ie: high burden of proof) if the end goal is simply to keep them off the street forever. All that is is salving the missplaced guilt of someone from having to 'pull the lever' and letting nature finally do their job for them.

But then, what are the effects of that predator on others in the prison system. An unrepentant killer preying on or fucking with people in prison who may or may not be a socio/psychopathic mental case? Or the Guards dealing with Hannibal Lector for forty years? I mean, sure it's there job, but every other job we try to mitigate the dangers for the worker, we try to remove dangerous situations.

[Dooey Jo]

In the US, you can be sentenced for 200 over years for killing quite a few people. So...?

So Mr. Bean is obviously talking from an America centred point of view, and doesn't seem to be aware other countries have other systems.

I'd say 99% effective rehabilitation is at least as likely as humans attaining indefinite lifespans, so the pro-death penalty side might as well reconsider their premises in light of that hypothetical scenario.

And you were talking about perfect rehabilitation??? Consistency isn't your strongest point is it?

What the fuck are you talking about. I was pointing out that two can play the game of inventing unlikely technology for the sake of argument. Perfect rehabilitation methods are even better in that respect, since they probably don't require a completely different society to be viable.

[Broomstick]

As I have stated in another thread, the only moral justification for killing another human being is self defense. If we can safely confine someone then we have no moral justification to execute them. If we can't confine them then, for the protection/defense of society at large we do have a moral justification to impose a death penalty.

If you accept morals and ethics as societally derived (as opposed to god or some such) then you can make the argument that a sociopath or psychopath is a threat to society and thus executing them is self defense, as long as it's after the fact of them harming society.

You can execute someone proven dangerous only if you can not contain him. Given that we have very secure prisons I would say almost no one is that dangerous.

I'm not seeing how confinement is an adequate solution to a threat to society ( properly proven and clearly stated ie: high burden of proof) if the end goal is simply to keep them off the street forever. All that is is salving the missplaced guilt of someone from having to 'pull the lever' and letting nature finally do their job for them.

No, the purpose (in my moral stance) is not to "keep them off the street forever" but to protect other people from harm. If there was some medication or some sort of mental leverage that would be as effective as locking them in a cell that, too, would be acceptable but it would also have to be equally secure, which is a tall order.

But then, what are the effects of that predator on others in the prison system. An unrepentant killer preying on or fucking with people in prison who may or may not be a socio/psychopathic mental case?

Potentially none - John Wayne Gacy, for example only preyed on young boys. With no young boys in prison there were no targets for his bent desires and the inmates were no more in danger from him than from any other inmate. A serial rapist focused on 15 year old female redheads will find few outlets in an all-male prison. Pedophiles will not find their favored victims in prison, either.

Or the Guards dealing with Hannibal Lector for forty years? I mean, sure it's there job, but every other job we try to mitigate the dangers for the worker, we try to remove dangerous situations.

Some jobs, however, carry inherent risk, and not just prison guard. Agriculture, for example, is often much more hazardous to life and limb.

In the case of Hannibal Lector a case might be made that he is far too dangerous to contain safely, but most psycho-killers aren't such an uber-villain.

[Alyrium Denryle]

People on the anti-death-penalty side; what do you propose to do if and when we develop anti-aging treatments and people have indefinite lifespans?

Are you still going to lock people up 'for life' if a life can be centuries or millenia? Or are you going to deny them the anti-aging treatment and thus really implement Mr Bean's 'death by 50 years of aging' penalty? Or are you going to punish murder with just a few decades of imprisonment, quite possibly less than 10% or even 1% of an average lifespan?

First off, good luck ever developing those treatments. I propose we wait, then burn that bridge when we get to it. Now stop grasping at straws.

In answer, you have a long time to fix most prisoners. The vast vast vast majority of prisoners are rather fixable, and in a lot of cases, will never re-offend once they are released.

I didn't even mention the purpose of the imprisonment, only the consequences. If you are locking people up to segregate them, then you are going to have to segregate immortal people for an indefinite length of time. Firstly how do you verify that they're actually safe to release and secondly what do you do when they're completely unrepentant?

In my opinion, the ideal answer is mind scans for verification and partial brain wipes for enforcement. Obviously we don't have that technology yet but it's closer than you might think (definitely less than a century out I'd say). In the mean time I do support the death penalty for extreme cases, but not for run-of-the-mill murders.

Put the hallucinogens down.

Erm... how sure are you willing to bet your money that rehabilitation methods are ever going to be at least 90% successful? Or are you willing to cough out lots of money for that to happen?

For the vast majority of crimes in general, you can probably get effectiveness that high with a well designed system. Combined with pro-active measures outside of prisons to prevent crime in the first place, we might even save money in the long run after the initial investment.

[Yogi]

People on the anti-death-penalty side; what do you propose to do if and when we develop anti-aging treatments and people have indefinite lifespans?

Are you still going to lock people up 'for life' if a life can be centuries or millenia? Or are you going to deny them the anti-aging treatment and thus really implement Mr Bean's 'death by 50 years of aging' penalty? Or are you going to punish murder with just a few decades of imprisonment, quite possibly less than 10% or even 1% of an average lifespan?

I sincerely doubt that everyone is going to be able to live forever, due to population control issues, and I doubt that prisoners are going to be at the top of the list. Even if they were, you can still get time off for good behavior for one life sentence. With multiple ones, it becomes harder, but still possible.

[18-Till-I-Die]

People on the anti-death-penalty side; what do you propose to do if and when we develop anti-aging treatments and people have indefinite lifespans?

Are you still going to lock people up 'for life' if a life can be centuries or millenia? Or are you going to deny them the anti-aging treatment and thus really implement Mr Bean's 'death by 50 years of aging' penalty? Or are you going to punish murder with just a few decades of imprisonment, quite possibly less than 10% or even 1% of an average lifespan?

Do you even expect people to answer this? This is rediculous in the extreme. You're asking how does one deal with a hypothetical technology that wont exist for centuries, if EVER, and how to apply modern ethical sense to it.

I'd like to repost something insightful Darth Wong said in another thread to Mr. Bean as i want the "imprisonment is death!" people to answer it:

Do you honestly believe you can nullify death penalty arguments by simply pretending that life behind bars and a death penalty are synonymous? Why are there cases of convicts fighting death penalty sentences for years, then? Surely, according to you, they would not, because life imprisonment is the same thing!

[Knife]

You can execute someone proven dangerous only if you can not contain him. Given that we have very secure prisons I would say almost no one is that dangerous.

This is my hang up, I don't understand where this caveat comes from? Is it a 'everyone has a right to life' type philosophy or what?

No, the purpose (in my moral stance) is not to "keep them off the street forever" but to protect other people from harm. If there was some medication or some sort of mental leverage that would be as effective as locking them in a cell that, too, would be acceptable but it would also have to be equally secure, which is a tall order.

To what end? Killing them (taking for granted that they are indeed guilty for the moment) is protecting other people from them. Large prisons with multiple equipment and doo-dads to keep them in there or a series of drugs to do the same seems overly complicated.

Potentially none - John Wayne Gacy, for example only preyed on young boys. With no young boys in prison there were no targets for his bent desires and the inmates were no more in danger from him than from any other inmate. A serial rapist focused on 15 year old female redheads will find few outlets in an all-male prison. Pedophiles will not find their favored victims in prison, either.

Fair enough.

Some jobs, however, carry inherent risk, and not just prison guard. Agriculture, for example, is often much more hazardous to life and limb.

In the case of Hannibal Lector a case might be made that he is far too dangerous to contain safely, but most psycho-killers aren't such an uber-villain.

Still begs the question on why to hold such dangerous people in the first place. I'd be up for exile, except every scrap of land has been claimed by someone and those people will probably not want our garbage which just leaves eliminating them from earth.

[Jon]

A man falsely imprisoned for life can who is subsequently found to be not guilty can be released. A man falsely imprisoned and executed than posthumously found to be not guilty cannot, isn't that reason enough, rhetoric aside?

[18-Till-I-Die]

A man falsely imprisoned for life can who is subsequently found to be not guilty can be released. A man falsely imprisoned and executed than posthumously found to be not guilty cannot, isn't that reason enough, rhetoric aside?

IMO, absolutely yes.

But some people (you know who you are) think that no one, ever, has been executed that didnt have it coming.

[Junghalli]

Depends. The possibility of false conviction, for the categories of crimes it applies to (non-100% certifiable by DNA testing), should be enough of a reason to not use the death sentence on those people.

If guilt is 100% established, death penalty should be in effect. No real reason to support a dangerous element of society for his life when he is anyway convicted to lifetime imprisonment.

I agree with this. Most of my objections to the death penalty arise out of the fact that it's irreversible. If you imprison an innocent man for life and find out later that he wasn't guilty he can be set free (granted, you cannot give him back the years he spent in prison, but still...). If you execute an innocent man and find out later he wasn't guilty you cannot undo what you did: dead is dead.

If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt somebody killed another human being I don't see why the death penalty should be off the table: as far as I'm concerned he forfeited his right to life when he murdered somebody, and killing him would probably be the most efficient means of making sure he can never kill again.

[Dark Hellion]

Can we at least have the decency to leave the deterrence bullshit out. Deterrence is only of importance if we are looking at a legal system; that is a system designed to promote the smooth running of society. Under such a system, the death penalty is unnecessary. Such a system should first and foremost be concerned with the rehabilitation of those who can be rehabilitated. For those who cannot be, isolation from the society the harm becomes necessary. And that is pretty much it. The idea is simply to make those who harm society recompense that harm and become useful societal members again. Punishment is simply not in the equation.

When looking at the death penalty, we are looking at a system of justice. We are looking at whether or not there is a desert of the part of the individual that he should be permanently removed from existence. This is of course the fuzzy area. Justice systems have the unfortunate problem that they generally exist quite well in abstract, but are impractical. They deal with the idea that crimes deserve punishment, which is in and of itself a highly contentious statement to make.

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. Those that cross that line are breaking something we hold as sacred, and as such have willfully given up what rights they have been given as humans (by humans, mind you) by such actions. Of course, with the severity of the punishment, the severity of the action must also be high. Cold-blooded murder (be it some thug killing you for your sneakers, or a redneck shanking you for being "a fag"), violent sexual assault (such that it leaves the victim permanently physically traumatized, as well as the mental trauma inflicted), and torture (be it physical or sexual) are the only crimes I can come up with off the top of my head that I would classify as heinous enough to warrant consideration for such actions. All crimes have a component to the action that goes against everything that human civilization has attempted to build itself to. They are actions that we would associate with beasts or devils (if one is inclined) and while clearly committed by human hands (our cleverness makes us more capable of atrocity that anything else in nature) they represent that which humanity wishes to stand against. That being said, the response is simple, when someone commits such an act, society removes them from humanity, forever. It is not about revenge. Retribution comes from other sources. The idea is the same as the compassion we show to a rabid dog. We take it behind the shed and put a .22 in its head. It has shown it is unable to interact meaningfully, and it has shown it is a danger, and we remove it. It is for its own good as well. The dog, or someone who would have such criminal tendencies, is clearly not capable of interacting with society in the manner that normal people are. Given that normal people can be everything from crack addicts to Navy SEALS to upstanding businessmen to some Christian Snake-oil salesmen, and all can avoid these crimes without thought, we much assume that the problem lies in the criminal, that there is not excuse because others with similar or worse backgrounds have avoided those mistakes whereas the criminal has not. 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. We would burn the world around us so that the ideas of justice we carved from nothing are preserved, because we are mortal, but civilization is too damn important not to destroy damn near everything else to see it remain.

Now, this is the abstract. Currently, I am quite on the fence about the practicality of the death penalty. The hopeless inadequacies and corruption of the U.S. legal system leave me doubting its ability to successfully uphold even the lowest standards of justice, and while I am a bit fire and brimstone about my love for Lex Talionis, I think I would rather settle for a badly run legal system than a badly run justice system. I consider justice too important to be ran by competitive bureaucrats in suits.

The other part of the abstraction is the assumption that we cannot cure the mental defect that causes the persons to commit such actions. If such a cure is available, then punishment by death becomes unjust, as we now possess the tool by which to make the offender back into a competent member of society. Under such a system, the punishment dealt out to persons would most likely follow a corporal methodology somewhat like what Duchess proposes.

I doubt that any modern human government actually has the necessary patience and competence to run a system that can justly implement the death penalty on a large scale. There are going to be cases in any country where the evidence of a heinous crime is so overwhelming that one could easily say, "without a doubt, this bastard did it. We are going to kill him because we won't stand for this action." However, locking these individuals away for life is in all likelihood a fair trade for not executing a innocent persons.

[Rye]

A man falsely imprisoned for life can who is subsequently found to be not guilty can be released. A man falsely imprisoned and executed than posthumously found to be not guilty cannot, isn't that reason enough, rhetoric aside?

Of course, if someone's been executed, how often is an inquiry into the conviction even made? My guess is it's rare as shit since it won't solve anything now, and even if they are, they'll be severely underfunded in comparison to ongoing cases.

[Broomstick]

You can execute someone proven dangerous only if you can not contain him. Given that we have very secure prisons I would say almost no one is that dangerous.

This is my hang up, I don't understand where this caveat comes from? Is it a 'everyone has a right to life' type philosophy or what?

If you must know, it springs my religion and the idea that life is precious and not to be idly wasted or taken. I do not, however, wish to make this into a religious debate.

It's not "right to life" in the Christian Fundamentalist sense, but the basic concept is that the only moral justification for taking a human life is self-defense. If you can render someone non-threatening without killing him (or to be fair, her) then doing that is the moral choice even if it may be more expensive or inconvenient. If a person can not be rendered non-threatening then yes, execution may be the best choice although it's not something I would applaud. It does not undo a crime.

To what end? Killing them (taking for granted that they are indeed guilty for the moment) is protecting other people from them. Large prisons with multiple equipment and doo-dads to keep them in there or a series of drugs to do the same seems overly complicated.

A person does not cease being a person merely because they are bad or committed a crime. I'm sorry if the solution I see as morally preferable is "overly complicated" in your view, but I've long thought that a true test of morality is doing the right thing even when it is not the easiest, most convenient, or cheapest course of action.

Some jobs, however, carry inherent risk, and not just prison guard. Agriculture, for example, is often much more hazardous to life and limb.

In the case of Hannibal Lector a case might be made that he is far too dangerous to contain safely, but most psycho-killers aren't such an uber-villain.

Still begs the question on why to hold such dangerous people in the first place.

As I said, not everyone is Hannibal Lector. Most prison guards go to work most days and return home unhurt. Even most of the very dangerous criminals can be safely held and transported. As I said, if you have someone who is continually escaping, or continually managing to hurt others, then you might have a justification from a safety standpoint to execute that individual but it has to be an actual problem and not a theoretical one.

[Winston Blake]

1. All Nations of the World already have the Death Penalty
In any justice system where it is possible to sentance someone to more than one hundred years of prison time, there exists a default death penalty.

[snip]

If a forty year old man gets a one hundred year sentance with no parole for kidnapping and rapping a child, then you have sentances your murder to death by old age while telling yourself that he is simply being put in prison.

By that logic, retirement homes are equivalent to Nazi gas chambers. If I put a 60-year old man in a nice retirement home for the rest of his life, then I'm murdering him, right?

Why? Do you expect him to be able to be released at some point? All you've done is decided that this man shall die, but die years from now with the best medical treatment trying to keep him alive and living all his days, eating and sleeping with materials and buildings provided by the public as tax.

By that logic, if we expect elderly people to never need to leave their retirement homes, we should just knock them out and slaughter them like sick cattle.

This man will never be release if he is guilty, if he is innocent perhaps, but if you are opposed to the death penality on grounds an Innocent man might be killed in placed of a guilty one stay tuned for point two.

I'm probably going to stay tuned for a long time. Point two says 'There must be a harsher punishment than life imprisonment, because lifers can still commit crimes'. This doesn't address the risk of executing innocent people at all.

2. Without a death penalty, what to do with someone who commits a Capital offense who is already in jail for committing another Capital offense.

[snip]

What do you do with a inmate who is already in jail for the remainder of their adult life and kills again? You can't make their punishment worse, your stuck their is no other punishment option you can exercise except to hope that the guards will "be forced to shoot the prisoner trying to escape" thus again letting you tell yourselves your hands are clean.

You're saying 'lifer crimes must be punished, and the only thing worse is capital punishment, therefore we must execute them'. I don't agree the first or second assumptions.

For the first assumption, I see three purposes of prison:

• - Segregation to protect society
  - Rehabilitation
  - Deterrence

Punishment only matters as far as it acts as a deterrent. Punishment in the sense of vengeance or retribution is not the reason for existence of prisons.

For the second assumption, there are many punishments worse than ordinary life imprisonment, even without cruel and unusual methods. From you post, you should have realised two yourself - solitary confinement, and restrictions on privileges. Solitary confinement can be adjusted as desired - a few months or years at a time.

I don't know whether minimum legal qualities are already implemented for food, exercise, etc - if they aren't, then restrict them on condition of good behaviour. If they are, then give extra quality treatment to prisoners with a good behaviour record - if they act up, cut their privileges down for various periods of time.

Without those two assumptions, the conclusion that we must use capital punishment is clearly invalid.

---------------

From reading the thread, I can remember the complaint 'Life imprisonment is much more expensive and risky (to guards and other inmates) than execution'.

The risk to guards should be considered a part of the job - consider that there are many restrictions that could be placed on ordinary citizens that would make police safer. For example, Australia's banning of pepper spray (or anything similar), body armour, any joined sticks as for 'kung-fu', swords (in Victoria), etc. Just because it makes personnel safer doesn't mean it's right.

The risk to other inmates should be considered a responsibility of the prison system. It falls in with the risk of injury from environmental sources like food poisoning, shoddy construction work, etc. If a prison is working properly, inmates at the level of capital punishment should never be allowed the opportunity to harm other inmates.

Now, it doesn't need to be expensive - I think prisoners should be made to work, and educated for the express purpose of wringing more useful work out of them. As above, granting and restricting privileges can drive them to work - extra free time can be another carrot/stick.

Even if it was expensive, if being dead weight on society was all it took to warrant execution, then it would be OK to round up all the senile elderly and homeless bums and dump their bodies in mass graves.

Further, these costs may be the price society is willing to pay to ensure that innocent people aren't executed. This is analogous to the way 'innocent until proven guilty' policies choose to pay the potential cost of a guilty man going free, in exchange for all reasonable assurances than an innocent man will not be sentenced.

You said you were going to address it, but I didn't see it - how do you justify the risk of executing innocent people?

[Winston Blake]

A point that just occurred to me is that arguments along the lines of 'they'll never be released, they're a risk to others, and they're dead weight on society' should apply equally well to maintaining all the unfree mentally infirm, all the way from retarded children up to the demented elderly. Might as well just knock them all off, right?

60,000 RM

That is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime.

Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too.

[Dark Hellion]

I would think we are above the appeal to emotion red herring of the mentally diseased, as a significant portion of criminality is the possession of the mental faculties to determine right from wrong, but the lack of the moral faculties to follow said determinations. Cute attempt, but don't insult us with bullshit.

[Junghalli]

A point that just occurred to me is that arguments along the lines of 'they'll never be released, they're a risk to others, and they're dead weight on society' should apply equally well to maintaining all the unfree mentally infirm, all the way from retarded children up to the demented elderly. Might as well just knock them all off, right?

Well, there is the arguments that

1) Those people have done nothing to deserve death, arguably murderers have. It's the murderer's own fault for being a murderer, a retarded or disabled person never chose to be that way.

2) Those people for the most part are not dangerous to others in the way that murderers are.

I'm not sure the two are really comparable.

[K. A. Pital]

Winston Blake, you're comparing dangerous elements of society such as rapists, murderers and child rapists and murderers to mentally or physically disabled harmless people?