Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Molyneux]

I'm interested in seeing the opinion of other boardmembers on the idea of a criminal death penalty option. Let's keep the gloves on, here, no strawman arguments or goalpost-moving need apply.

Personally, I don't believe that the death penalty can ever be a justifiable punishment. While there are crimes that deserve permanent removal from society - that prove that the criminal involved is simply too dangerous to be allowed further opportunities for violence - I have very little faith in any real-world justice system to never convict an innocent man of a crime. Rather, I find it likely that a significant fraction of those in prison are innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted, given the ludicrously corrupt state of prosecution in the United States today.

Moving from that, I find it undeniable that, where a death penalty is an option, it is inevitable that an innocent man will eventually be executed - and that conclusion prevents me from supporting the implementation of a death penalty, under any circumstances.

[Singular Intellect]

I subscribe to the idea of the death penalty as a means of removing a threat from society (not as 'punishment'), and solely in cases of 'beyond any possible doubt' whereas we have every reason to believe the individual cannot be integrated into civilized society.

In those cases, why bother expending resources to keep them alive? I'm well aware of the argument about 'costs more to execute than imprison', but that's a problem with the justice system itself, not the end result.

As for 'absolute perfection or don't use/implement it', that's a retarded piece of reasoning. What system in history has such ridiculous standards? Anyone here support the banning of cars because their use kills tens of thousands every year?

[Mr Bean]

A death penalty is required
The death penalty must be an option for there exists people for which the containment and maintenance present a continued ongoing threat.
The "kills a guard scenario" is a classic one.

You have a person already in prison for a life sentence with no possibility for release who successfully attacks and kills one of his guards.
Now do you

A. Ignore it
B. Throw him in a hole and lock the door (Cruel and unusual punishment)
C. Execute him

You may put him on trial but it changes nothing, he or she is going to be in jail for the rest of their natural life and has rather effectively demonstrated they don't intend to die of old age in prison quietly. He or she must be dealt with and unless you want to put him or her in a medical coma until age clams him your going to settle the issue on a permanent phasion.

Lifers are already on max security because they literally have nothing to lose so you can't max their max security without me asking why they were not in this even more security to begin with.

[K. A. Pital]

Support only for recidivists, so that a set-up or false accusation is not going to end up with an innocent dead.

[Lord of the Abyss]

While I have no particular feelings about it in the abstract, in practice it is a combination of racism, class warfare, sexism and blood sport. Whether the State even tries for it has little to nothing to do with what you did, and everything to do with where you fall on the spectrum of race, class and gender. And far too many people seem to have no concern at all about the innocence or guilt of the target; they just want someone to die so they can feel tough. I see no reason to think that we are willing to even seriously try to apply it in a just fashion, much less able to do so. So I oppose it.

[Axiomatic]

The death penalty must be an option for there exists people for which the containment and maintenance present a continued ongoing threat.

I can accept that if they have some sort of superpower that lets them manifest Wolverine claws. Otherwise, the idea that someone in prison is still a threat to society is ridiculous.

[K. A. Pital]

The death penalty must be an option for there exists people for which the containment and maintenance present a continued ongoing threat.

I can accept that if they have some sort of superpower that lets them manifest Wolverine claws. Otherwise, the idea that someone in prison is still a threat to society is ridiculous.

Such as crime bosses who have claimed dozens of lives continuing to lead mafia clans from behind the bars? Organized crime is not ridiculous - it's dangerous and deadly.

[AMT]

The death penalty must be an option for there exists people for which the containment and maintenance present a continued ongoing threat.

I can accept that if they have some sort of superpower that lets them manifest Wolverine claws. Otherwise, the idea that someone in prison is still a threat to society is ridiculous.

Such as crime bosses who have claimed dozens of lives continuing to lead mafia clans from behind the bars? Organized crime is not ridiculous - it's dangerous and deadly.

But does the Death Penalty truly help lower the crime rate for those types of crimes? After all, it's not as if executing the Crime Lord will somehow stop the organization. By it's nature it won't, thus executing the Crime Lord won't really help.

[Rabid]

Death penalty : permanent removal of an individual from society.

I propose :
Commute Death Penalty to Life Suspension.

Life Suspension : Removing a person from society by supending its life/consciousness (artificial coma, or, if viable in the future, literal "life suspension" for a fixed amount of time (cryogeny or something like that))


Benefits :

- No "Oh shit, we executed an innocent".
- A decision easier to cancel.
- The person is still effectively removed from society.

Inconvenients :

- The person is under life support, which mean that there is still cost associated to its "custody" (to be compared with the cost associated with the maintenance of life sentence inmates).
- Possible/probable permanent health/mental damages (to be compared to the damages associated with life sentence).
- In the case of "cryogeny for a limited amount of time", what do you do with the human wreck when it has serviced its sentence ? Do you keep it "alive" until the End of Times, or until a method is found allowing to "repurpose" it as a model, productive citizen ?

[AMT]

Death penalty : permanent removal of an individual from society.

I propose :
Commute Death Penalty to Life Suspension.

Life Suspension : Removing a person from society by supending its life/consciousness (artificial coma, or, if viable in the future, literal "life suspension" for a fixed amount of time (cryogeny or something like that))


Benefits :

- No "Oh shit, we executed an innocent".
- A decision easier to cancel.
- The person is still effectively removed from society.

Inconvenients :

- The person is under life support, which mean that there is still cost associated to its "custody" (to be compared with the cost associated with the maintenance of life sentence inmates).
- Possible/probable permanent health/mental damages (to be compared to the damages associated with life sentence).
- In the case of "cryogeny for a limited amount of time", what do you do with the human wreck when it has serviced its sentence ? Do you keep it "alive" until the End of Times, or until a method is found allowing to "repurpose" it as a model, productive citizen ?

Plus the fact we can't actually do this. We don't live in the movie Demolition Man.
A life sentence does the exact same thing, except that the person actually ages and eventually dies, without the needs outlined above.

[K. A. Pital]

But does the Death Penalty truly help lower the crime rate for those types of crimes? After all, it's not as if executing the Crime Lord will somehow stop the organization. By it's nature it won't, thus executing the Crime Lord won't really help.

Killing leaders has a non-trivial effect on complex systems such as human organizations. We can't claim that it "won't stop the organization" - more than a few gangs collapsed after their leaders were arrested or killed. Because the leader is the mind. Unless their replacement system is very good, a collapse can follow after a decapitation.

[AMT]

But does the Death Penalty truly help lower the crime rate for those types of crimes? After all, it's not as if executing the Crime Lord will somehow stop the organization. By it's nature it won't, thus executing the Crime Lord won't really help.

Killing leaders has a non-trivial effect on complex systems such as human organizations. We can't claim that it "won't stop the organization" - more than a few gangs collapsed after their leaders were arrested or killed. Because the leader is the mind. Unless their replacement system is very good, a collapse can follow after a decapitation.

But one could also show that such a collapse may increase the loss of life as the organization fights amongst itself until a new leader is chosen, with nothing guaranteeing the new leader will mitigate future loss of life. You thus can't say that executing is a good because it lowers the loss of casualties.

[K. A. Pital]

But does the Death Penalty truly help lower the crime rate for those types of crimes? After all, it's not as if executing the Crime Lord will somehow stop the organization. By it's nature it won't, thus executing the Crime Lord won't really help.

Killing leaders has a non-trivial effect on complex systems such as human organizations. We can't claim that it "won't stop the organization" - more than a few gangs collapsed after their leaders were arrested or killed. Because the leader is the mind. Unless their replacement system is very good, a collapse can follow after a decapitation.

But one could also show that such a collapse may increase the loss of life as the organization fights amongst itself until a new leader is chosen, with nothing guaranteeing the new leader will mitigate future loss of life. You thus can't say that executing is a good because it lowers the loss of casualties.

It depends on whether you value more the chaos that infighting with assassinations will cause in a gang that potentially can lead to its collapse, or lives of the gangmembers. I honestly think there's a benefit to society if gansters die, especially if they kill each other and potentially cripple their own organizations.

[Rabid]

Plus the fact we can't actually do this. We don't live in the movie Demolition Man.
A life sentence does the exact same thing, except that the person actually ages and eventually dies, without the needs outlined above.

Well, putting someone in an artificial coma certainly IS possible (though for what length of time at most I don't know). It is just that if the person has to be waken up, it will have to be put on a wheelchair, as its muscles will be atrophied (if nothing is done about that at least, like electrical stimulation of the muscles).
The benefit of this method is just that "discipline" will be far more easily maintained compared to a "classic" life sentence...

Though I have to recognize that this idea is a good 4 on 5 on the Evil Fascist Sociopath Scale, or "Purple Scale".

It depends on whether you value more the chaos that infighting with assassinations will cause in a gang that potentially can lead to its collapse, or lives of the gangmembers. I honestly think there's a benefit to society if gansters die, especially if they kill each other and potentially cripple their own organizations.

Well :

- Is it better to have the leader of the organization close to your sight, close to your hands

Or

- To have a gang war and to lose "access" to the resulting organization's command structure




Don't think moral. Think utility to the law enforcement process and the effort of dismantling ever renewing criminal organizations on the long run.

[AMT]

It depends on whether you value more the chaos that infighting with assassinations will cause in a gang that potentially can lead to its collapse, or lives of the gangmembers. I honestly think there's a benefit to society if gansters die, especially if they kill each other and potentially cripple their own organizations.

Except that such chaos can and will likely bleed into affecting innocent bystanders, not just the gangsters, so this point is moot.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the bystander angle makes the problem more complex. But it defies simple solutions, such as "yes to death penalty ALWAYS" or "no to death penalty ALWAYS".

[salm]

A. Ignore it
B. Throw him in a hole and lock the door (Cruel and unusual punishment)
C. Execute him

There´s still plenty of room between A and B. Making prison life harsher for bad behaviour in prison is nothing unusual. And you don´t have to get cruel or even unusual.

[Thanas]

No. Especially not with the state of the justice system in the USA. Nor would I trust any other justice system with it.

The risk of killing an innocent is always there, and as forensic science gets better and better, more and more miscarriages of justice come to light.

[K. A. Pital]

No. Especially not with the state of the justice system in the USA. Nor would I trust any other justice system with it.

The risk of killing an innocent is always there, and as forensic science gets better and better, more and more miscarriages of justice come to light.

Only if you implement a first-offense death penalty, which is a terribly inefficient and error-prone system. On the other hand, systemic and serial murder or rape is pretty much impossible to set up. Death penalty only for repeat offenses would lower the chance of someone being killed.

I.e. if this is the first trial, death penalty is out of the question.

[Thanas]

Only if you implement a first-offense death penalty, which is a terribly inefficient and error-prone system. On the other hand, systemic and serial murder or rape is pretty much impossible to set up.

You'd be surprised what has been pinned on people in the past....

[Molyneux]

No. Especially not with the state of the justice system in the USA. Nor would I trust any other justice system with it.

The risk of killing an innocent is always there, and as forensic science gets better and better, more and more miscarriages of justice come to light.

Only if you implement a first-offense death penalty, which is a terribly inefficient and error-prone system. On the other hand, systemic and serial murder or rape is pretty much impossible to set up. Death penalty only for repeat offenses would lower the chance of someone being killed.

I.e. if this is the first trial, death penalty is out of the question.

I find it worth noting that there was a piece in the New York Times last week written by a man who spent over a decade on death row, thanks to his being convicted of two violent crimes that he did not commit - he just lost a Supreme Court case attempting to bring charges against the prosecutors who knowingly withheld evidence that proved his innocence.

It's not in question, by the way, that the prosecutor (Harry Connick Sr.) withheld evidence, or that he did it knowingly. That wasn't disputed. What the Supreme Court did was rule that prosecutorial immunity was more important than guaranteeing a fair trial to the accused, even in cases where the accused may very well wind up with the death penalty.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Death penalty : permanent removal of an individual from society.

I propose :
Commute Death Penalty to Life Suspension.

Life Suspension : Removing a person from society by supending its life/consciousness (artificial coma, or, if viable in the future, literal "life suspension" for a fixed amount of time (cryogeny or something like that))

There's presently no proof that turning someone into a mansicle will do anything but kill them cold and dead. Yes, I suppose, with enough technological effort you could retrieve enough information from a sufficiently well-preserved brain to generate a functional personality and, thus, save the owner of the well-preserved brain from information-theoretic death. With even more technological effort, you could turn a sufficiently well-preserved mansicle into a human-shaped swarm of nanotechnology which retains its previous personality, thus saving the owner of the mansicle from information-theoretic death. Of course, whether or not such technologies will leave the pages of sci-fi stories is a very interesting question to ponder.

If the ability to reverse killing someone ice-cold and dead is ever developed; the question becomes "Why should a future society undertake this effort for a criminal who was judged to be completely beyond redemption in the society he came from?" Perhaps they'll excise his memories of being a cold-blooded killer (plus all the memories and experiences leading up to his crime,) and perhaps they'll fundamentally re-wire his brain to cure him of whatever sociopathy put him on the path to murder. In that case, it's arguable that they're just picking up the name and legal identity of the mansicle and sliding in a whole different person underneath. Which can be argued to mean that you've just killed the criminal in the information-theoretic sense . . . and if you're going to do that, you'd might as well give him the massive overdose of barbituates now.

You may have just condemned someone to execution and a very expensive burial. The cost of preparing the corpse for its internment in liquid nitrogen within an allowable timeframe to minimize the loss of information-bearing neural structures is not-insignificant. As is the cost of storing and maintaining their shiny sarcophagi, and the cost of maintaining a trust- and legal-defense-fund in their name for (potentially) all of perpetuity.

[Rabid]

@ GrandMasterTerwynn :

I was saying that half jokingly (that's what I was referring to when I was speaking about "custody costs"). In now way I expect cryogenic to be a viable mean of human life preservation. I was just referring to the general idea of "suspended animation".


Anyway, my "original" idea on the subject (re : an equivalent to the death penalty were you don't kill the guy), before I realized it could be labeled as a "cruel and inhumane" treatment, and thus counter-productive to the Goal (i.e. : trying to be a bit humane) ; was to leave the inmates conscious, just to put them in a "can", with an "oxygen mask", intravenously fed, their muscles electrically stimulated, floating in a tank of water at body temperature, without sensory inputs other than what is fed into their "audio-visual goggles", and that for the duration of their sentences. Basically, that's sensory deprivation combined with brainwashing.

I think that the mean to achieve such an idea already exist today. You'd need less prison guards, but more medical personnel and technicians to maintain all that stuff running.


Please note that this is just my imagination running wild, and that in no way I am "demanding" something like this to be done. I realize it is as terrible as the death penalty, maybe even more (a fate worse than death, as sensory deprivation was shown to render people mentally insane). I'm just leaving this there for your consideration.

[K. A. Pital]

Did you all miss "first trial" bit? I said it doesn't matter - if it's the first trial, even if the accused is a serial killer, he only gets life sentence.

On the other hand, someone who already served his term and went on to kill again gets death penalty on the second trial.

[AMT]

Did you all miss "first trial" bit? I said it doesn't matter - if it's the first trial, even if the accused is a serial killer, he only gets life sentence.

On the other hand, someone who already served his term and went on to kill again gets death penalty on the second trial.

But what does killing accomplish that a life sentence doesn't? The organized crime discussion aside, life imprisonment would remove that person from society just as easily, and be cheaper for taxpayers than execution is.

If the person is a violent offender who will attack guards, they have solitary confinement/supermax style prisons where the person cannot interact with anyone at all.