Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Eternal_Freedom]

How exactly is keeping someone in supermax prisons for 40+ years cheaper than executing them?

[Hamstray]

How exactly is keeping someone in supermax prisons for 40+ years cheaper than executing them?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
yes, if only there were a way around the costs to this fair trial thing.
i know, maybe you could outsource the death penalty to china. =p

[Axiomatic]

On the other hand, systemic and serial murder or rape

Isn't that pretty much what the US prison system IS?

EDIT: And yeah, you can really cut down the costs if you simply skip the whole inconvenient "trial" business and simply have cops execute suspects out of hand. They were probably guilty of SOMETHING.

[AMT]

How exactly is keeping someone in supermax prisons for 40+ years cheaper than executing them?

What Hamstray said.
In addition, not all Death Row inmates currently on Death Row would need to be in Supermax. Hell, the majority wouldn't. But for those who would require it due to their natures the total cost would still be less than what we pay now.

[Molyneux]

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.

Did you miss the bit where I pointed out someone who was very nearly executed - someone who lost a significant chunk of his life to death row - thanks to his being wrongly convicted of two separate crimes? He wasn't given the death penalty in the first trial, but that first violent-crime conviction opened the way for the death penalty in the second case.

[Thanas]

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.

It is not out of the question that, even if the first trial will be absolutely clean, the second one will not. Especially with confirmation bias like "he was tried and convicted once, so obviously he has to be guilty of it again".

[Simon_Jester]

How exactly is keeping someone in supermax prisons for 40+ years cheaper than executing them?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
yes, if only there were a way around the costs to this fair trial thing.
i know, maybe you could outsource the death penalty to china. =p

Give the guy a break. A lot of people know it, but it's not universal knowledge, and it's counterintuitive as hell that this would be the case.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Thank you Simon.

To answer the OP, I think that there are some cases where a death sentence is justified, but as others have said you have to damn sure about it.

[General Mung Beans]

Certainly I don't think there's anything wrong with taking the life of a person who has intentionally taken that of another person but as a minimum it should be applied to war criminals and the like.

[K. A. Pital]

Execution is more expensive than life imprisonment? *eyes suspiciously* Also, why "organized crime discussion aside"? Let's say a henchman kills once, lands in jail, gets out in 8 years or so. Kills again. Now, why should he even live, at all?

[madd0ct0r]

Because we're better then he is.

I waver on this argument, but right now I'd argue that life time imprisonment is more humane. We have come further then 'an eye for an eye'.

[K. A. Pital]

Let's move it further. Why keep paedophiles and serial murderers who have untreatable psychological disorders alive? They are clearly dangerous and will never cease to be dangerous. Their imprisonment carries the potential chance of them going free some day and continuing to kill. A dead person can't kill anyone.

[Molyneux]

Let's move it further. Why keep paedophiles and serial murderers who have untreatable psychological disorders alive? They are clearly dangerous and will never cease to be dangerous. Their imprisonment carries the potential chance of them going free some day and continuing to kill. A dead person can't kill anyone.

For one, because there is no guarantee that their disorders will perpetually remain "untreatable". For another, because if we are so sure they are incurable, security can be set up such that their chance of escape is effectively zero. For a third, because there still remains the possibility that an innocent person may wind up charged with heinous crimes.

[Simon_Jester]

Execution is more expensive than life imprisonment? *eyes suspiciously*

The price of execution depends almost entirely on the amount of money you spend on quality control- the number of man-hours of skilled labor the legal system uses processing the conviction and the appeals.

Summary executions are cheap. Executions after a full trial, with exhaustive examination of the evidence, and appeals whenever grounds for them and a court willing to listen can be found... those are quite expensive.

That said, I don't really disagree with Stas's sensibilities on this matter; I might disagree on details but not on the broad principle that someone who presents a substantial, ongoing risk of committing murders when set free might well be better dead.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm... aren't the trial expenses basically a variable which remains the same regardless of whether the punishment is life imprisonment or execution? The evidence has to be examined in both cases, and there are also appeals from those sentenced to prison for life.

For one, because there is no guarantee that their disorders will perpetually remain "untreatable". For another, because if we are so sure they are incurable, security can be set up such that their chance of escape is effectively zero. For a third, because there still remains the possibility that an innocent person may wind up charged with heinous crimes.

Yeah, we can set up security so that the chance of escape is zero. However, the practice of such individuals (serial rapists and child rapists) being released after sentence commution or something like this, amnesties, etc. is well established. Death prevents this.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Hmm... aren't the trial expenses basically a variable which remains the same regardless of whether the punishment is life imprisonment or execution? The evidence has to be examined in both cases, and there are also appeals from those sentenced to prison for life.

From what I understand, no. People targeted with the death penalty tend to get shoddy trials with bad evidence, obvious prejudice on all levels, and terrible lawyers, the sort who show up drunk or sleep through much of the trial. This leads to a badly flawed trial much more vulnerable to appeals.

[madd0ct0r]

is that because shoddy court's tend to favour the death sentence, or the criminal is 'marked' for it with the powers that be stacking the deck.

I'd guess it's the former, and I'm not sure it's an argument for or against the death penalty in general terms.

[Aldroud]

I was always a hard core supporter of the death penalty. My attitude was 'fuck 'em, let God sort it out'.

That was then. I justified it by telling myself the system had enough checks and balances that no innocent person would ever be executed. Then Texas executed an innocent man - Cameron Todd Willingham.

I've seen a few executions. They're dirty and repellant. In my Army days, I tallied bodies pulled from mass graves in Bosnia.

At a certain point, I realized the death penalty diminshes what it means to be human. Once someone is under your control, killing them is almost always unnecessary. Now I'm about 99% opposed to the death penalty. I reserve judgement on the last 1% for white supremacists, war criminals, and boys that try to date my daughter.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

is that because shoddy court's tend to favour the death sentence, or the criminal is 'marked' for it with the powers that be stacking the deck.

I'd guess it's the former, and I'm not sure it's an argument for or against the death penalty in general terms.

It almost certainly is an argument against the death penalty. If a suspect is marked for it, it colors the perception of the judge and jury and encourages them to form a conclusion ahead of time and mentally interpret the evidence in such a way that it fits their preconceived notion. This increases the likelihood that an innocent man or woman will be murdered by the criminal justice system. If it's a 'shoddy,' potentially-biased court that's trying you . . . do you really want them to decide whether you're guilty of a parking ticket, let alone choosing whether you'll live or die?

[Simon_Jester]

Hmm... aren't the trial expenses basically a variable which remains the same regardless of whether the punishment is life imprisonment or execution? The evidence has to be examined in both cases, and there are also appeals from those sentenced to prison for life.

Well, if I were designing the judiciary, the standard of evidence in a death penalty case would be higher- or rather, the effective standard of evidence would be; you'd have much more scrutiny applied to the system, because you need to eliminate much more doubt.

I mean, suppose the real killer confesses ten years from now. If the defendant went to jail, I can let them go with minimal extra cost; if they're dead, not so much. So I'd want a system that's very, very good at deducing that the accused is not the real criminal, no matter how many circumstantial variables are against them: prior criminal record, motive for disliking the person, and so on.

With life imprisonment you have more flexibility simply because there's no irreversible line at which you can no longer try to make things right. You can 'afford' to be a little less cautious, aiming for (say) 99.9% certainty instead of 99.999% certainty. That saves a lot of man-hours.

Yeah, we can set up security so that the chance of escape is zero. However, the practice of such individuals (serial rapists and child rapists) being released after sentence commution or something like this, amnesties, etc. is well established. Death prevents this.

If we have the social willpower to kill people, we should have the social willpower to lock them up and throw away the key- remove the possibility of parole, sentence commution, and the like.

[Lord of the Abyss]

is that because shoddy court's tend to favour the death sentence, or the criminal is 'marked' for it with the powers that be stacking the deck.

Both, I think. There does seem to be a correlation between enthusiasm for the death penalty and a generally shoddy justice system; Texas being an example. But also being targeted for the death penalty has less to do with what you are accused of doing than it does with who you are. A poor black man is a prime target, while someone female, white or especially well off is far less of a target. And on top of that, lawyers don't usually want to defend death penalty candidates, so they tend to end up with the worst available public defenders (if they can afford their own lawyer, they aren't at all likely to be up for the death penalty in the first place).

[MarshalPurnell]

Because we're better then he is.

I waver on this argument, but right now I'd argue that life time imprisonment is more humane. We have come further then 'an eye for an eye'.

Mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the merciful. It is absolutely ridiculous to require that to be morally superior to a serial pedophile, or murderer, or mob boss, that society spare their lives. It ignores the possibility that they can still harm other people, and makes the silly assumption that all human life is equally valuable or has equal moral weight. I would say someone who has placed himself outside the bounds of society by his egregious harm to it (such as by murdering people) should have no standing to demand anything of that same society. As threats to the general public, outside of hope of rehabilitation, what utility is there to not simply disposing of such people?

Provided their guilt can be established beyond question. There are very good procedural criticisms of the death penalty, which is why I would not be averse to abolishing it in the United States and elsewhere. But the moral argument against it is just insipid.

[Formless]

Mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the merciful. It is absolutely ridiculous to require that to be morally superior to a serial pedophile, or murderer, or mob boss, that society spare their lives. It ignores the possibility that they can still harm other people,and makes the silly assumption that all human life is equally valuable or has equal moral weight. I would say someone who has placed himself outside the bounds of society by his egregious harm to it (such as by murdering people) should have no standing to demand anything of that same society. As threats to the general public, outside of hope of rehabilitation, what utility is there to not simply disposing of such people?

OH? Please, do explain what logically makes you unworthy of living just because you've killed someone, raped someone, etc. Then explain why the executioner should be allowed to live under this moral code you've crapped out your mouth.

That human beings are equally deserving of the right to live and be happy is the very basis of our fucking society, moron. Don't act like arguments for the death penalty aren't de facto arguments for the lesser evil, if they are valid at all.

[Thanas]

Because we're better then he is.

I waver on this argument, but right now I'd argue that life time imprisonment is more humane. We have come further then 'an eye for an eye'.

Mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the merciful.

The quality of mercy is not strain'd...

It is absolutely ridiculous to require that to be morally superior to a serial pedophile, or murderer, or mob boss, that society spare their lives. It ignores the possibility that they can still harm other people,

Lock them up in supermax then.

[MarshalPurnell]

OH? Please, do explain what logically makes you unworthy of living just because you've killed someone, raped someone, etc. Then explain why the executioner should be allowed to live under this moral code you've crapped out your mouth.

That human beings are equally deserving of the right to live and be happy is the very basis of our fucking society, moron. Don't act like arguments for the death penalty aren't de facto arguments for the lesser evil, if they are valid at all.

Are you retarded or something?

Because most people would recognize the difference between murder and state-sanctioned killing. And the state certainly reserves the right to sanction killing, in war for example. Murder is defined as illegal (ie, non-sanctioned) killing, and our justice system prosecutes it because of the harm that it does to society. All justice systems that are not an extension of divine law operate under the same rationale, ultimately derived from the nature of sovereignty to enforce the King's Peace.

And I'm sure murdering people makes a serial killer really happy. So what? Their rights end when it threatens the social order, from which all "individual rights" are ultimately derived. By attacking that order they have placed themselves outside society and are de-facto enemies of that order. They have to be neutralized one way or another, and locking them up in a cage for the rest of their lives has no utility over simply executing them; provided, of course, that guilt can be established with certainty, but the moral argument that "the death penalty is inherently wrong" ignores the issue of such uncertainty.