The Death Penalty - The Metzler Case

[Metahive]

I see this as a continuation of the N&P thread concerning the four indian rapists that were sentenced to death.

As I said, I want to use this as an opportunity to discuss the Death Penalty a little more in depth. I'd like to start with the Metzler Case. In 2002, 11-year old Jakob von Metzler was murdered by university student Magnus Gäfgen. He lured the little boy into coming with him, drowned him in a bathtub and then blackmailed money out of the boy's parents. He was caught when he tried to collect the ransom and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole after 15 years, more or less the heaviest sentence in the german justice system (barring the possibly unconstitutional "Sicherheitsverwahrung/ additional incarcaration for security purposes").

I chose Magnus because he's, IMHO, one of the most despicable criminals you could find. He abducted a child, killed it in a painful way, gave his parents false hope about the boy's survival and did it all out of petty greed. This makes this ideal to discuss both the merits and demerits of mercy and punishment and put convictions to the test. Let's start with some questions:

1. Do you think he got a punishment appropriate to his crime? If not, please explain why
2. If not, and you're pro-DP, what benefits would have executing him have over the sentence he's currently given?
3. Tied to the above, would Germany be better off if it had the DP on the books?

I myself am pretty strongly anti-DP, but I'm interested in what arguments pro-DP people can bring to the table.

EDIT:
This case also involved a controversial application of torture, so this case might serve as a torture discussion too

[Korto]

life in prison without possibility of parole after 15 years,

What does that mean? He serves a life sentence of 15 years, with no chance of getting out earlier? Or he stays in indefinitely with no chance of parole, when normal procedure is to offer parole after 15 years?

For an appropriate punishment, he killed someone (the fact it was a child should not be significant. All people should be equal under the Law). The method used could have been less painful, and still have been as practical, but suffering doesn't seem to have been the objective of it, either. Just callous.
Trying to scam money afterwards was also callous, but insignificant when placed against the murder in the first place.
Did it out of greed. OK. It's not a mitigating factor, but I don't see how it makes it any worse then if he did it for laughs.
30 years.

I have nothing against the death penalty. I view the "Right to Life" as akin to the "Right to Drive", that is, something you can lose. But I wouldn't give it for this, it just doesn't reach my threshold for such a final step.

If he had done such that I would otherwise have locked him up until dead, and I was totally confident of his guilt (beyond all sane doubt), then I would support death. What's the point of keeping him locked up?
However, I don't see Germany being better off, or any country, being better or worse off for having the Death Penalty. Just different.

What was the torture aspect?

[Lagmonster]

Is the sentence reasonable? Depends. How well-funded and humane are German prisons?

What I want most is people to own their responsibilities. Once a society removes the liberty of an individual, they are accepting responsibility for him. That means that society is now responsible for the costs, effort, infrastructure, and time necessary to house the prisoner in a humane and low-risk fashion. If this man is guilty, and the German people agreed to treat this man humanely, and they agree to pay for all of the costs involved, and they have made reasonable efforts to mitigate any risk this man poses to others, then I see no way in which killing him would be any improvement.

However, that's a lot of 'ifs'. There is a point at which I would not object to the death penalty, because if you are unrepentantly (or committed to, as in some of the worse prisons on earth) irresponsibly handling prisoners, I'd say you are better off making the decision to end his life then and there rather than let him rot in a cage and die at the tail end of a lifetime of torture or forced solitude. If there was a chance this man would be released, I'd have to discuss a third factor, which is the mitigation of future risk.

[Metahive]

What does that mean? He serves a life sentence of 15 years, with no chance of getting out earlier? Or he stays in indefinitely with no chance of parole, when normal procedure is to offer parole after 15 years?

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Life imprisonment in Germany means to spend at least 15 years in prison. After those the prisoners can ask for parole. Gäfgen however was hit with the "Besondere Schwere der Schuld / Particular Severity of Guilt" - clause*, which means he won't get this chance and will presumably spend about ~25 years in prison.

For an appropriate punishment, he killed someone (the fact it was a child should not be significant. All people should be equal under the Law).

Actually the law, at least in here in Germany, includes many special rules for children and for adults handling children. Although there's none that says killing a child is always worse than killing an adult as far as I know. It could however be that the above mentioned "Particular Severity of Guilt" is more likely to be applied to a child-murderer. Thanas probably knows better.

The method used could have been less painful, and still have been as practical, but suffering doesn't seem to have been the objective of it, either. Just callous.
Trying to scam money afterwards was also callous, but insignificant when placed against the murder in the first place.
Did it out of greed. OK. It's not a mitigating factor, but I don't see how it makes it any worse then if he did it for laughs.
30 years.

Interesting , thanks.

I have nothing against the death penalty. I view the "Right to Life" as akin to the "Right to Drive", that is, something you can lose. But I wouldn't give it for this, it just doesn't reach my threshold for such a final step.

What would be your threshold? Would you demand death for someone like Anders Bering Breivik?

What was the torture aspect?

When there was still the belief that Jakob was alive, the chief of the police threatened Gäfgen with torture if he didn't reveal his location. This caused quite a year-long discussion about the appropriatness of such measures and ended with the chief of police getting fired and Gäfgen getting recompensated.

What I want most is people to own their responsibilities. Once a society removes the liberty of an individual, they are accepting responsibility for him. That means that society is now responsible for the costs, effort, infrastructure, and time necessary to house the prisoner in a humane and low-risk fashion. If this man is guilty, and the German people agreed to treat this man humanely, and they agree to pay for all of the costs involved, and they have made reasonable efforts to mitigate any risk this man poses to others, then I see no way in which killing him would be any improvement.

As far as I know, german prisons aren't as desolate as american ones, at the very least. They for sure aren't nice (then again, prisons really shouldn't be), but they aren't hellholes.

However, that's a lot of 'ifs'. There is a point at which I would not object to the death penalty, because if you are unrepentantly (or committed to, as in some of the worse prisons on earth) irresponsibly handling prisoners, I'd say you are better off making the decision to end his life then and there rather than let him rot in a cage and die at the tail end of a lifetime of torture or forced solitude. If there was a chance this man would be released, I'd have to discuss a third factor, which is the mitigation of future risk.

If convicts were given the choice to either die or spend a life in prison, how many would choose death? Are there cases where this actually happened in recent history?




*this clause applies to multiple murders/ killing sprees, merciless brutality and if the convict displayed particular cruelty while comitting the crime

[Lagmonster]

As far as I know, german prisons aren't as desolate as american ones, at the very least. They for sure aren't nice (then again, prisons really shouldn't be), but they aren't hellholes.

That makes a huge difference. Societies need to acknowledge their responsibilities. Taking someone and saying, "I control every moment of your life from now on" is a huge responsibility, that once taken, shouldn't be taken lightly. But that's just me saying that what happened to this guy is acceptable.

If convicts were given the choice to either die or spend a life in prison, how many would choose death? Are there cases where this actually happened in recent history?

Would you count prisoners who commit suicide rather than endure prison, such as Ariel Castro? Although at first, I thought of the issue of medical suicide. People who have suffered tremendously, or who know they will suffer tremendously, and so choose death*. I have no idea how many people would select death *far* in advance of the actual suffering, since people probably figure they can endure even a bad jail.

That said, I don't know if that's the right perspective. A person who has had their liberty taken away from them by society, for wronging that society, isn't given a choice by default by that society - it's up to the society to elect to act as humanely and responsibly as possible. A society in control of a person they do not intend to rehabilitate or release, should to my mind consider it preferable to kill the person, if the alternative is to keep them under inhumane conditions until they rot.

*I have always wanted to discuss a similar hypothetical scenario to your newest question, though, which we see in sci-fi from time to time, where a medically advanced society has to impose mandatory maximum life spans because the alternative is horrendous overpopulation and resource scarcity. How easy would it be for people to adapt to a society where they were expected to elect to die? I don't think I could make that choice if I were otherwise healthy and happy.

[Korto]

What does that mean? He serves a life sentence of 15 years, with no chance of getting out earlier? Or he stays in indefinitely with no chance of parole, when normal procedure is to offer parole after 15 years?

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Life imprisonment in Germany means to spend at least 15 years in prison. After those the prisoners can ask for parole. Gäfgen however was hit with the "Besondere Schwere der Schuld / Particular Severity of Guilt" - clause*, which means he won't get this chance and will presumably spend about ~25 years in prison.

25 years. I've got no complaint about that.

I have nothing against the death penalty. I view the "Right to Life" as akin to the "Right to Drive", that is, something you can lose. But I wouldn't give it for this, it just doesn't reach my threshold for such a final step.

What would be your threshold? Would you demand death for someone like Anders Bering Breivik?

For a judicial guideline*, I would consider the death penalty when the number of years they'll spend in prison with no hope of getting out exceeds their lifespan. For a simple number, and avoid discriminating against the older, I would suggest 100 years. That could be Gäfgen committing four murders, at which point it seems it's become a bit of a habit for him.
While I wouldn't demand it for Breivik (I'm suspicious of those "demanding" death. They sound a bit emotional, and prone to make mistakes), I would certainly support it. If there's no intention to let him out, and my heightened standard of proof has been met, why keep him around?
*I have more faith in judges then politicians, so I'm solidly against "Mandatory Sentencing".

What was the torture aspect?

When there was still the belief that Jakob was alive, the chief of the police threatened Gäfgen with torture if he didn't reveal his location. This caused quite a year-long discussion about the appropriatness of such measures and ended with the chief of police getting fired and Gäfgen getting recompensated.

Being sacked sounds appropriate, as the threat apparently wasn't carried out, don't feel there should have been compensation. If it was carried out, then I would expect serious charges laid and compensation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

However, that's a lot of 'ifs'. There is a point at which I would not object to the death penalty, because if you are unrepentantly (or committed to, as in some of the worse prisons on earth) irresponsibly handling prisoners, I'd say you are better off making the decision to end his life then and there rather than let him rot in a cage and die at the tail end of a lifetime of torture or forced solitude.

Not to be an asshole... but German prisons are NOT US Prisons.

However, that's a lot of 'ifs'. There is a point at which I would not object to the death penalty, because if you are unrepentantly (or committed to, as in some of the worse prisons on earth) irresponsibly handling prisoners, I'd say you are better off making the decision to end his life then and there rather than let him rot in a cage and die at the tail end of a lifetime of torture or forced solitude. If there was a chance this man would be released, I'd have to discuss a third factor, which is the mitigation of future risk.

Unlike prisons in the US, German prison systems are designed to rehabilitate criminals. In this case, the prisoner is eligible for parole after 15 years, without the above mentioned "Besondere Schwere der Schuld" exception (unlike some countries, they DO have the option to imprison them for life...just in case). So there is a good chance (statistically at least) that if the prisoner is released, he will not be a recidivist.

Now for the OP.

1. Do you think he got a punishment appropriate to his crime? If not, please explain why
2. If not, and you're pro-DP, what benefits would have executing him have over the sentence he's currently given?
3. Tied to the above, would Germany be better off if it had the DP on the books?

1. 15-25 minimum with the option to extend to the entire lifetime seems perfectly reasonable to me. This person killed a child in cold blood. Rehabilitation may not be possible, and if that is the case they should not be released. However, I do not believe justice is served by pure retribution, which is what a longer sentence irrespective of rehabilitation would be.

2. I am against the death penalty for the most part. The sorts of crimes for which I could imagine myself supporting the death penalty is very small and does not include conventional murder, or any crimes against persons. Basically, I dont support the death penalty, but there ARE crimes for which I think death is deserved. I also do not think the state should have the right to make that determination. It should not be in the business of having someone killed. This is because The State's primary obligation is to protect its citizens, something that is directly contradicted by killing its citizens.

So, I oppose the death penalty.

However, I can entertain possible exceptions if the argument is strong enough. Generally, these are crimes not against persons, but against the continued existence of the state, the basis of civilized society itself, humanity, or the biosphere. The crime has to exceed and transcend mere persons.

Here is a list.

A. Vile High Treason. No, not regular treason. I am not talking about someone who gives money to a terrorist group, oe joins a foreign army that is at war with a US ally or something. I am talking about someone who hands over nuclear missile launch codes, biological weapons, or other such items or information to a Live Hostile. Someone who does something that by itself threatens the existence of the State.

B. Slavery. Enslaving others is not just a crime against the enslaved persons, but a crime against the concept of individual autonomy and self-determination. It undermines Every. Single. Fundamental. Right. It is an attack on personhood itself.

C. Various forms of election fraud. Not voter fraud by individuals, but Election Fraud. Ballot stuffing, election-rigging, mass-disenfranchisement. Again, crime against society itself, not persons.

D. Regulatory Corruption, on both sides. If someone bribes a member of a primary regulatory body like the FDA, USDA or whatever such that something is accepted into distribution, production or disposal that is unsafe for the population or will damage the biosphere upon which we all depend... that is a crime against society and perhaps against the biosphere.

E. Commercial Poaching. Self explanatory as a crime against the biosphere. Not talking about some subsistence hunter who poaches deer, but illegal fishing fleets, Elephant/Rhino ivory poachers etc.

F. War crimes, including torture, genocide etc. Self explanatory.

G. Gross and Knowing violation of the right to Due Process on a large scale. Not an isolated extrajudicial killing, but forming a policy of indefinite detention without trial(outside the Geneva Conventions and the lawful treatment of POWs for the duration of an actual war between belligerent powers), rigging trials etc. Why? Because Due Process is what gives every other fundamental right its legal meaning and teeth. It is no good having Freedom of Speech if someone can arbitrarily arrest you.

I dont actually support the DP in such instances, yet, but they are things I have considered and know I am predisposed to accepting.

3. I dont think that Germany CAN have the death penalty. Not for legal reasons, but historical ones. Germany ought not--all arguments for or against the death penalty in other nations aside--ever put itself in a position to systematically kill people ever again. It would undermine the respect for life and human rights that has been Germany's biggest social achievement post WW2. It would be a contradiction, ethical if not necessarily legal, with Article 1 of the Grundrechte.

[xthetenth]

Personally the only time I would support the death penalty is when somebody is guilty of repeated violent crime, shows signs that they will do so again, and are at a serious risk of escape. If they can be rehabilitated/kept safely and securely then they should not be executed, the only reason they should be executed is because allowing their freedom is a definite danger to other peoples' lives. This borderline requires a contrived scenario, so in practice it is being against the death penalty.

*I have always wanted to discuss a similar hypothetical scenario to your newest question, though, which we see in sci-fi from time to time, where a medically advanced society has to impose mandatory maximum life spans because the alternative is horrendous overpopulation and resource scarcity. How easy would it be for people to adapt to a society where they were expected to elect to die? I don't think I could make that choice if I were otherwise healthy and happy.

Strictly enforced birthrate regulation would theoretically be capable of doing this as well. That might be less painful in most circumstances than enforcing a maximum age.

[Gaidin]

1. Do you think he got a punishment appropriate to his crime? If not, please explain why

You described it as more or less the heaviest sentence the justice system can put out barring security purposes(if legal), if I understand your post correctly. That in mind I can only say yes. I do not wish to play mind games with other country's legal systems compared to Germany's punishments. That just makes for useless arguments instead of actual debates over the subject at hand, I believe.

2. If not, and you're pro-DP, what benefits would have executing him have over the sentence he's currently given?

These discussions always turn out to be more complicated than this, inevitably, and I think this is where it ends up that way. I believe being pro-DP is not black and white. While I am "pro-DP", I don't believe there are benefits to executing convicts. I just believe that there are crimes for which the context fits appropriately. I believe it's why generally everyone gives each case it's own sentencing hearing. If there are societies that are willing to lock up prisoners for life without a chance of parole, there is no reason not to go the extra step if, and I stress if they have as extensive an appeals process as is reasonable. That in mind, for reasons stated in my answer to Question 1, I am wary of directly answering whether or not I would want to see him on Death Row.

3. Tied to the above, would Germany be better off if it had the DP on the books?

To my knowledge, which is largely tied to what you've defined as their heaviest sentence, Germany seems not to be willing to go so far as to strip parole from its prisoners barring special circumstances. Combined with Alyrium's statement regarding recent cultural historic occurrences, I would say that they have their own reasons for not wanting to have the temptations to have these options on the books. These sentences are any given state's or country's prerogatives. To have them or not, and how to use them, if you use them, should be done carefully for any culture. It's just there. It's an option. But it can easily be abused in a very scary fashion. Case in point would be some of Texas's executions in the last decade.

[WATCH-MAN]

I think that this debatte can't be done without a reflection of the theory of criminal justice - especially the question: Why should we punish at all? (in German: Strafzwecktheorien).

The answer to this question will differ from nation to nation and culture to culture. It will differ from person to person - according to the individual experiences of each person. It depends on the view of each person on concepts like free will vs. determinism and how free will is a requirement for guilt and if quilt is a requirement for punishment. And most important: It depends on which importance one attaches to inviolable human dignity.

It is my personal conviction that there is no stringent and consistent reasoning for punishment. I think that punishement is a relict from a time long long ago and that most people do not really contemplate why someone should be punished at all. It is so ingrained in most cultures that it is regarded as a matter of course.

I prefer a mix of rehabilitative and preventive theories - even if that means that someone who would be punished today for what he has done, wouldn't be punished under these theories (as neither rehabilitation nor prevention is necessary). I can't follow deterrent, retributive or expiatory theories.

Insofar I think that Gäfgen is dangerous and should be incarcarated for security purposes while at the same time it should be tried to rehabilitate him. As long as rehabilitation is not successful, he remains dangerous and should stay incarcarated. But if he can be rehabilitated and isn't dangerous any more, he should get free.

That's my opinion - knowing that most people would disagree with me.

[Lagmonster]

Not to be an asshole... but German prisons are NOT US Prisons.

Oh, yes, Metahive clarified that. I'm only Canadian, but I know enough to know not to get convicted of anything that would send me to any prison in the south-west US.

I'm still okay with the idea - for guilty murderers - of a quick execution over life in prison when you start talking about prisons in seriously poor, violent, or oppressive places on earth. It does take on the aspect of a mercy killing, but also requires a society to decline its responsibilities first.

The sorts of crimes for which I could imagine myself supporting the death penalty is very small and does not include conventional murder, or any crimes against persons. Basically, I don't support the death penalty, but there ARE crimes for which I think death is deserved. (...)

(...) E. Commercial Poaching. Self explanatory as a crime against the biosphere. Not talking about some subsistence hunter who poaches deer, but illegal fishing fleets, Elephant/Rhino ivory poachers etc.

Not to compare ideologies with you, but are you placing people who illegally kill animals below those who illegally kill people? Humans normally expect a bit of, well...speciesism, in each other.

[Simon_Jester]

I think that this debatte can't be done without a reflection of the theory of criminal justice - especially the question: Why should we punish at all? (in German: Strafzwecktheorien).

The answer to this question will differ from nation to nation and culture to culture. It will differ from person to person - according to the individual experiences of each person. It depends on the view of each person on concepts like free will vs. determinism and how free will is a requirement for guilt and if quilt is a requirement for punishment. And most important: It depends on which importance one attaches to inviolable human dignity.

I'm inclined to ask, what exactly is meant by human dignity? What does it mean to say that the right to dignity is 'inviolate?'

Rights are prohibitions on the actions of a powerful group (like the state) that might otherwise seek to undermine or attack you. If the state can reasonably guarantee that you will get something, either by giving it to you, or by simply not stopping you from having it yourself, then we can call it a right and have that be meaningful.


So we could talk about a right to breathe the air, because air is everywhere (more or less) and you usually would have to go far out of your way to stop someone from breathing it. Protect people from losing access to air, with some reasonable precautions, and the right is secured.

But you can't talk about a right to gold bricks, because there aren't enough to go around- we can't possibly guarantee that everyone will have one.


We talk about an inviolate right to a fair trial, because the state can guarantee you a fair trial- no matter what else, they can always manage that somehow.

We talk about the inviolate right to free speech, because ultimately all the state has to do to ensure your freedom of speech is not stop you from speaking, and discourage anyone else who tries to do so.

But we don't talk about inviolate rights to happiness, because as a practical matter society cannot and should not guarantee that it will make you personally happy. Some people will become unhappy as a result of state policy; others will become unhappy as a result of random things the state can't change.

So when we talk about an inviolate right to dignity, can the state reasonably guarantee your dignity after you have committed a crime? Is your dignity one of the fundamental things at stake here, compared to other issues?


On a side note... Can there be such a thing as a punishment that preserves dignity?

To take old historical examples, I know people, and know of historical figures who would certainly argue that execution by firing squad is designed with rituals in place to preserve the dignity of the condemned.

I prefer a mix of rehabilitative and preventive theories - even if that means that someone who would be punished today for what he has done, wouldn't be punished under these theories (as neither rehabilitation nor prevention is necessary). I can't follow deterrent, retributive or expiatory theories.

Insofar I think that Gäfgen is dangerous and should be incarcarated for security purposes while at the same time it should be tried to rehabilitate him. As long as rehabilitation is not successful, he remains dangerous and should stay incarcarated. But if he can be rehabilitated and isn't dangerous any more, he should get free.

That's my opinion - knowing that most people would disagree with me.

How does the inherent uncertainty of psychiatric evaluations impact your decision? If he seems cured within six months, do we keep him in prison, or do we let him go at once? What if it turns out that he's simply very good at fooling psychiatrists?

I'm not saying we should remove the idea of rehabilitation and parole- quite the opposite. But there are real issues with building the entire system of criminal justice entirely around rehabilitation. And I think that's where the deterrent/retributive model comes in, because it introduces the idea that there is some kind of flat "price" you must pay, at a minimum, for certain acts against society.

In civil cases we assess the price in units of money, but that doesn't preclude us having a parallel system that assesses a price in units of the condemned's time and freedom.

[WATCH-MAN]

I'm inclined to ask, what exactly is meant by human dignity? What does it mean to say that the right to dignity is 'inviolate?'

Article 1, paragraph 1 of the German constitution reads: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
How do you understand this?

• • • • As a side-note: A decision by the German Federal Constitutional Court in 1977 said life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional as a violation of human dignity (and the Rechtsstaat principle). With other words: Even criminals do have human dignity that has to be respected an protected.

How does the inherent uncertainty of psychiatric evaluations impact your decision?

Take the risk.
In dubio pro reo.
In dubio pro libertate.
But not in dubio pro securitate.
That's what a liberal society which respects and protects human dignity has to bear.

Besides - there are ways to minimize the threat without imprisonment (electronic tag, obligation to report, ban from certain premises, house detention, rehabilitation assistant ...)

The problem I have with deterrent theories is that the culprit is not punished for what he did but for what others may do. He becomes an object of criminal policy. Furthermore it is strongly diputed if punishment really has a deterrent effect. And I have problems to base my justification for punishment on something that hasn't been proven.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not to compare ideologies with you, but are you placing people who illegally kill animals below those who illegally kill people? Humans normally expect a bit of, well...speciesism, in each other.

It is not the killing of animals that is the issue. It is the catastrophic collapse of things like global fish populations and the resultant harm to...everything. Not everyone. Everything. The crime is much bigger than the action itself, it exists on a scale that boggles the mind.

To use an analogy. Let us say that Person A hates person B (or will financially benefit from the death of B, take your pick). Person B is hooked up to a machine that in response to premature cessation of his life signs, rolls a d6 (representing the fact that we do not know where all these threshold points are in ecological robustness). If it comes up a 1, a poison will be released that will fuck up a LOT of people and other life forms. Person A knows this. He shoots B anyway. Certainly he has committed a single murder, but has also knowingly risked a great many more.

Now multiply this by N number of such persons (representing multiple species of course). Assume these machines are in place by divine fiat or something and cannot be removed. If we accept any circumstance under which we might exact the ultimate penalty, should it not be for crimes on that scale?

The same goes for regulatory corruption. It is not the fact that accepting a bribe is contemptible. It is the "holy fuck, you just allowed them to dump toxic waste in the drinking water reservoir and subverted the protections upon which we all rely to avoid such calamity for your personal gain.".

[Metahive]

Sorry guys for the long absence, but my work threw me an unexpected weekend shift. Still got a lot of work ahead of me . So this'll be somewhat shorter.

@Korto
Prison sentences in Germany don't add up like in some other countries, you only serve the highest sentence you received. So no century-sentences in good ol' Germany.

@lagmonster
I can not agree with the notion that people who'd have to suffer in terrible prisons should be killed off instead out of mercy. That'd be just an incentive to never improve prisons and I think that'd be counter-productive if the goal is the eventual humane treatment of convicts. Dead people can't complain after all. That's talking about countries that wish to appear civilized of course. Other nations, like North Korea probably don't give a shit either way but also have the reputation to match.

@Alyrium
Indefinite prison sentences (the so called "Sicherheitsverwahrung/ incarceration for security purposes") have been ruled unconstitutional in Germany as of 2011. The convict needs to have a chance to be a free man on some foreseeable day. Of course, if he constantly botches his parole hearings he might be old and decrepit before he's released out of health concerns, but I think that happening is very rare in Germany.

@WATCHMAN
I don't think punishment is going away any time soon and I don't think that's it has no place in society. The best punishment IMHO is if the convict himself feels the weight of his crime and the need to atone, but punitive measures have their role if only in showing that society rejects certain kinds of deeds and behaviour.

Gaidin
You and Alyrium have pointed out that Germany would have special reasons to reject the DP. I want to have clarified, does that mean DP is only bad if it's done by Germans?

[Lagmonster]

Sorry guys for the long absence, but my work threw me an unexpected weekend shift. Still got a lot of work ahead of me . So this'll be somewhat shorter.

Take your time; this is your thread. If you have to necro it after a few days, we'll likely still be here.

@lagmonster
I can not agree with the notion that people who'd have to suffer in terrible prisons should be killed off instead out of mercy. That'd be just an incentive to never improve prisons and I think that'd be counter-productive if the goal is the eventual humane treatment of convicts.

I think the only real incentive to improve how your society treats its worst citizens comes from the attitudes your population have towards them. I think what you're saying here is true - it does seem to be the 'easy way out' - but that describes other attitudes that I'd argue we don't change for reasons other than pure sloth. If a society has a problem with the inhumane, I'd assume that the messages "we're being treated very badly by society" should have the same weight on the public conscience as "we're being killed because society doesn't want to treat us well". Except in one case you have, as mercenary as this sounds, less suffering people.

The real noggin-scratcher to my argument isn't (to me) whether suffering or death is morally worse - it's determining just how badly society has to arse up its corrections system to arrive at a point where a prison sentence is the equivalent of a lingering death sentence.

[K. A. Pital]

1. Do you think he got a punishment appropriate to his crime? If not, please explain why

No. His punishment could have been death, although not necessarily. Like I said, I favor a "one more chance" approach where even murderers get a second chance. However, given the murder was brutal and the child certainly defenseless and not guilty of anything, the man may very well have done enough to be executed.

2. If not, and you're pro-DP, what benefits would have executing him have over the sentence he's currently given?

Him being dead is a benefit. His actions demonstrate a remarkable case of complete loss of empathy, extreme sociopathy and if he was judged completely sane, I can only say that this person is extremely dangerous as he's capable of such things without being insane and sick. The possibility of his release during an amnesty wave is certainly not what I'd like to see. On the other hand, he was trying to get a ransom from an upper class person (a banker). Is it completely ruled out that the killing of the kid was a crime of passion (i.e. that he actually didn't plan to kill him but did so and went with the ransom anyway)? If so, then he's ultra-cruel. If there's still a chance that something went wrong with his plan, then I'd err on the side of caution and advocate the "second chance" approach.

3. Tied to the above, would Germany be better off if it had the DP on the books?

Maybe not. Germany can afford to maintain prisons for a tiny number of extremely disgusting criminals sentenced to life imprisonment.

[Gaidin]

Gaidin
You and Alyrium have pointed out that Germany would have special reasons to reject the DP. I want to have clarified, does that mean DP is only bad if it's done by Germans?

My stance on Germany not wanting to have the DP is more that of an outside observer. You said it takes very special circumstances just to strip parole, much less get anything resembling a life sentence from a convict. I expect their aversion is of their own will, and thus, the DP is bad because they say it is.

For my own opinion on the sentence, I stated that such sentences are never good. How can I? I'm not sure I can, with any honesty. There are just individual committed crimes for which the context may be appropriate as a sentence, that is all. In truth, once you hit a range of sentences, even the longer(est) jail sentences[not life imprisonment here, that's a different context], I can't say they're 'good'. I can only say they are appropriate to the context of crimes that have the potential to come up.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm inclined to ask, what exactly is meant by human dignity? What does it mean to say that the right to dignity is 'inviolate?'

Article 1, paragraph 1 of the German constitution reads: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
How do you understand this?

I don't.

I mean, I have a rough idea of what "human dignity" means to me, but I can't imagine treating it as an inalienable right.

Governments cannot promise to spare citizens all indignity. Indignity is part of life, like dirt or sweat. Nearly all of us die in some degree of indignity. Without exception, all of us are born in indignity.

When we talk about something and call it an inalienable right, to me that implies a right to something the government can reasonably guarantee me. It can guarantee me freedom of speech, by simply not restricting my speech and not allowing others can do so. It can guarantee me a fair trial, by not letting my trial be unfair. It can even guarantee me a reasonable measure of security. We can say that these things are inalienable rights- even in a society that doesn't choose to do so, the possibility still exists.

But if you say the government can guarantee me dignity, then obviously you are using a different standard of what constitutes 'dignity' than me. Which is fine, and is not a criticism of you- but it means that if you want to persuade me, I'm going to need you to define your terms a bit more clearly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Gaidin
You and Alyrium have pointed out that Germany would have special reasons to reject the DP. I want to have clarified, does that mean DP is only bad if it's done by Germans?

No, but this reason is particular to Germany (and imposed by the Germans on themselves). Germany has an obvious history with state sponsored murder. When that ended (in fire), the Germans committed themselves as a people to the preservation of life and human dignity. It is enshrined in the constitution, and is inviolate. There is no greater loss of dignity than being murdered in a ritualistic manner.

But if you say the government can guarantee me dignity, then obviously you are using a different standard of what constitutes 'dignity' than me. Which is fine, and is not a criticism of you- but it means that if you want to persuade me, I'm going to need you to define your terms a bit more clearly.

Think of it in terms of something like Kantian ethics and you might be getting somewhere. Treating the population and the individuals therein as ends unto themselves and never as a means to an end. Not killing people to serve someone else's interests, for example.

[Korto]

@Korto
Prison sentences in Germany don't add up like in some other countries, you only serve the highest sentence you received. So no century-sentences in good ol' Germany.

If someone has a chance of eventually going free higher than Buckley's, I don't support death
Also, for adding sentences together, I feel the offences should be largely separate. When one act caused multiple offences, then it should be considered more like one big offence. What I mean is, someone killing 3 people at one time (like in an arson attack), while obviously very serious, is not as worrying as someone who kills 3 people in three separate incidents. The former could have been an act of madness, regretted forever after; the latter is obviously becoming a habit.

[WATCH-MAN]

@WATCHMAN
I don't think punishment is going away any time soon ...

Agreed

and I don't think that's it has no place in society.

Why?

The best punishment IMHO is if the convict himself feels the weight of his crime and the need to atone,

The first problem I have with that view is, that most people do not really know, what exactly atonement is.

The second problem I have with that view is, that atonement is a religious term.

The third problem I have with that view is, that you can't force someone to atone. A forced act can not lead to a reconilation with god respective with the society.

but punitive measures have their role if only in showing that society rejects certain kinds of deeds and behaviour.

The first problem I have with that view is, that it ascribes punishment a deterrent role. The problem I have with deterrent theories is that the culprit is not punished for what he did but for what others may do.

The second problem I have with that view is, that the reaction of society is not really related to the action of the culprit. One steals and gets a prison sentence, one deceives and gets a prison sentence, one uses threats or force to cause a person to do, suffer or omit an act and gets a prison sentence, one bribes someone and gets a prison sentece, one is doing a treason and gets a prison sentence, one injures someone and gets a prison sentence, one kills someone and gets a prison sentence. Sometimes it is only an amercement, sometimes it is even a death penalty. But the kind of "punishement" has nothing to do with the kind of offense. Only the quanitity is changing.

The third problem I have with that view is, that it is doing nothing good. It doesn't compensate the wrongness and it doesn't compensate the harme done.



Punishment is an act that is - on its own - a bad action. If someone else deprives someone of his liberty, it would be regarded as bad. If someone kills someone, it would be regarded as bad. It's even bad - and is punsihed - if that someone is doing it as punsihment (self-administered justice). But if the state is improsining or killing someone, it is regarded as good. The question is: Why? There has to be a stringent reasoning that justifies punishment in its quality and in its quantity. I haven't seen such a stringent reasoning.
That's why I prefer a state reaction after a bad deed, that has the intent to get compensation for the harm done to the aggrieved party and is a mix of rehabilitative and preventive measures.

[energiewende]

Since people are not immortal, what is the clear distinction between the death penalty and lesser penalties, such as imprisonment? For instance, is there a substnative difference between keeping someone under sedation until they die of natural causes, and executing them while sedated? If not, how about if kept sedated 23.99 hours per day? How about 23 hours per day? How about not sedated at all, but simply locked in an empty box with nothing to do for 23 hours per day (which is what solitary confinement is in the US)?

I can well understand an argument against punitive justice as a whole, but not against the death penalty specifically.

[WATCH-MAN]

[...] if you want to persuade me, I'm going to need you to define your terms a bit more clearly.

I can't. There is no definition of human dignity.

Human dignity is the fundamental principle of the German constitution and even mentioned before the right to life.

Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirms the invioability of human dignity.

But you won't find a definition.

It is a term used in moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to be valued and receive ethical treatment. It is an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. [Wikipedia]

• • • • The duty to respect and protect human dignity generally forbids making any human being a mere object of the actions of a state. Any treatment of a human being by the state that - because it lacks the respect for the value that is inherent in every human being - would call into question his or her quality as a subject, his or her status as a subject of law, is strictly forbidden. [Bundesverfasssungsgericht]

I can't define it. But I know that human dinity is violated if a human being isn't treated as such, if fundamental rights are deprived or the human being is a mere object of the actions of a state.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Since people are not immortal, what is the clear distinction between the death penalty and lesser penalties, such as imprisonment?

Obviously that you will be alive at the end of your prison term, as well as the ability to reverse an unjust penalty.

For instance, is there a substnative difference between keeping someone under sedation until they die of natural causes, and executing them while sedated?

Not beyond the, I imagine, greater monetary and resource costs on the society administering the first punishment. It is just a very prolonged death sentence, and if this is how it happens they might as well execute this someone outright.

If not, how about if kept sedated 23.99 hours per day? How about 23 hours per day? How about not sedated at all, but simply locked in an empty box with nothing to do for 23 hours per day (which is what solitary confinement is in the US)?

The first two would be cruel. The third would be psychological torture, simply designed to spite man's nature as a social animal.

I can well understand an argument against punitive justice as a whole, but not against the death penalty specifically.

I think that most people that have a problem with the death penalty have a problem with punitive justice in general, and opt for a philosophy of rehabilitative justice. This dichotomy goes as far back as Plato.