The Death Sentence

Originally Posted by andi

So is your solution to the problem to take every narcissist who could ever potentially be a killer and throw them into a treatment center? Because I'm pretty sure that punishing someone before they commit a crime would kind of make us into jerks. :/

Where did I suggest anything like that?

Not once did I suggest rounding people up who are suspected to have a narcissistic personality disorder and commit them to psychotherapy programs.

My point is, that if we can increase our knowledge on the psychopathology that drives people to murder, rape or watch Julia Roberts' movies, then we can tackle crime in a more effective manner. This might mean devising deterrants that are more likely to affect profiles, or it might mean using psychological profiles to help find offenders who have yet to be identified before further crimes are commited. We can also use this data to keep a closer eye on more vulnerable people of society.

Psychological profiling is already being for crime prevention in this way across the world, although it's under-resourced. The FBI in particular are big fans of profiling, although the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law have stressed that their methods are currently too limited. As of 2006, the FBI worked with clinical interviews from thirty-something serial killers.

This is an area that demands more research, which we aren't going to get if we kill the people we need to learn about.

Originally Posted by andi

And would of course beg the question - should we treat all black people because they consist of 13% of the American population and commit approximately 50% of crimes?

See, when you take what you're saying and put it into context, your idea sounds kind of horrifying to me. :/

Well, the thing is, it isn't my idea at all.

Did I even mention any kind of 'treatment' programs, let alone suggest rounding people up to put on the couch?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

you can never be certain that someone did, in fact, commit a crime. You can be well over 99% sure, but that's not the same thing. (If, let's say, 1 000 people are killed every decade, all of whom you are 99% sure are guilty that's still 100 innocent people killed. Fun.)

You can't be sure a proven killer you jail won't kill a fellow prisoner or a guard or some other poor soul upon release though, can you? What of the state's obligation to these people, of whom there have been several? With the proper measures in place you could be subtantially more than 99% sure that a criminal was guilty. To the point where it would take a government-sponsored conspiracy to have framed the person (and when someone with the power to orchestrate that has you in their sights they're going to find a way to scrag you whatever happens).

Point of order: if 1,000 people a decade who you are 99% sure are guilty are sentenced to death this does not mean that 100 innocent people die. It doesn't mean any innocent people die. That's not how chance works, I'm afraid.

Secondly, it doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on crime. Countries that had the death penalty and got rid of it didn't have a sudden rise (or, admittedly, fall) in crime rates.

This is a myth. Obviously a rise in crime would not be sudden. There is a gradual sea-change in the attitude of the criminal fraternity to crime and its consequnces. And crime (violent crime) has risen substantially in nations where there is no death penalty. In westernised nations where there is one, such as Japan and Singapore, crime rates remain very low. Why?

They don't do a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone in anger.

Well of course the death penalty is unlikey to discourage crimes of passion. Would it deter casual brutality, ubiquitous knife-carry and premeditated murderer? Of course it would. Anyone who can't see that is blind.

Thirdly, the point of laws is to keep society running smoothly, that's it.

Heh, well you'll have to forgive us dusty old conservatives who still think it has something to do with justice.

Originally Posted by Terranix

Heh, well you'll have to forgive us dusty old conservatives who still think it has something to do with justice.

Justice is giving each their due, and we can't really say that someone deserves to die. However, if killing someone who is a danger to society and to other inmates, who is incurable, is also to be considered just, then I can't really complain.

And justice is the point of punishment more than the laws which incur said punishment. If laws are obeyed, society would run smoothly. If laws are not obeyed, that's when punishment becomes necessary.

Wether they are incurable or not is irrevlevant, it is the issue of being nieve enough to trust a murderer or rapist. Do you honestly think they give a ****? No, or they wouldn't have done it. We should have a much more simple system, like when you steal, whatever hand or hands you touched your stolen goods with, we cut them off, simple as that. Then they can't steal anymore. Problem solved. Their fault for being stupid.

I must also mention GDwarf's math is incorrect, 1% of 1000 is 10. I would rather have 990 killers off the street and 10 innocent dead than having the killers possibly getting free again. The needs of the many, outway the needs of the few, and right now, the many is all of society, while the few are the supposedly innocent which assume are possibly not guilty, sorry but if I am over 75% sure, HANG EM HIGH!

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Wether they are incurable or not is irrevlevant, it is the issue of being nieve enough to trust a murderer or rapist. Do you honestly think they give a ****? No, or they wouldn't have done it. We should have a much more simple system, like when you steal, whatever hand or hands you touched your stolen goods with, we cut them off, simple as that. Then they can't steal anymore. Problem solved. Their fault for being stupid.

I must also mention GDwarf's math is incorrect, 1% of 1000 is 10. I would rather have 990 killers off the street and 10 innocent dead than having the killers possibly getting free again. The needs of the many, outway the needs of the few, and right now, the many is all of society, while the few are the supposedly innocent which assume are possibly not guilty, sorry but if I am over 75% sure, HANG EM HIGH!

Have the past 500 years of progress been totally lost on you? Those barbarous systems is what kept Europe in the dark ages. It's what kept the Middle East a despotic dictatorship from Jerusalem to Baghdad. The fact you'd kill 10 innocent people, to deprive them of their lives, makes you no better than the 990 who really did kill or rape someone. One is innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Have the past 500 years of progress been totally lost on you? Those barbarous systems is what kept Europe in the dark ages. It's what kept the Middle East a despotic dictatorship from Jerusalem to Baghdad.

Saudi Arabia does still practice that system. They flog and behead people in public squares.

The fact you'd kill 10 innocent people, to deprive them of their lives, makes you no better than the 990 who really did kill or rape someone. One is innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Those ten supposedly innocent people (whom I doubt would exist under modern systems) are supposedly proven guilty (falsely) in GDwarf's hypothesis. Of course he fails to take into account that far more than ten innocent people have been killed as a result of convicted murderers killing again on release or killing guards or fellow prisoners while still inside in the UK alone, so from the utilitarian's standpoint such a system would still be better than what we have now.

On the subject of psychological profiling, by the way, I would argue that executing a psychopaths and then dissecting their brains would probably yield better results than any amount of time with the shrink. The mind is a black box. Other benefits of execution would be the blood, adult stem cells (I think?) and organs that could be harvested for medical purposes. What better way for a killer to repay their debt to society than to provide some terminally ill innocent with a new heart? You're helping them to make up for what they did; it's a kindness really. It ensures that at least something good has come from their ever having been born.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Wether they are incurable or not is irrevlevant, it is the issue of being nieve enough to trust a murderer or rapist. Do you honestly think they give a ****? No, or they wouldn't have done it. We should have a much more simple system, like when you steal, whatever hand or hands you touched your stolen goods with, we cut them off, simple as that. Then they can't steal anymore. Problem solved. Their fault for being stupid.

That's totally not cruel or unusual punishment right there.

I must also mention GDwarf's math is incorrect, 1% of 1000 is 10. I would rather have 990 killers off the street and 10 innocent dead than having the killers possibly getting free again. The needs of the many, outway the needs of the few, and right now, the many is all of society, while the few are the supposedly innocent which assume are possibly not guilty, sorry but if I am over 75% sure, HANG EM HIGH!

If you're honestly bewing serious (which I find hard to believe), then this quote above is enough evidence to say that you should not be allowed to take part in society.

Also, by the fact that someone's even accused makes most people more then 75% sure that they're guilty.

Originally Posted by Terranix

Those ten supposedly innocent people (whom I doubt would exist under modern systems) are supposedly proven guilty (falsely) in GDwarf's hypothesis. Of course he fails to take into account that far more than ten innocent people have been killed as a result of convicted murderers killing again on release or killing guards or fellow prisoners while still inside in the UK alone, so from the utilitarian's standpoint such a system would still be better than what we have now.

Most murders are isolated unplanned events that even if they were never punished for, the perpetrators most likely still wouldn't kill anyone again. Plus, most serial killers have their killings planned ahead, so unlike other murderers who don't normally have any planned way to prevent getting caught and are normally found within the first 48 hours, a serial killer will be able to evade police much better as they've probably planned everything about the killing out.

See kids, what a little planning can do!

I think that they should be locked in an 8 by 8 foot cell by themselves, only be given a Bible, and have to eat plain oatmeal for the rest of their lives. I don't have a problem with the death penalty, though. It's just that this would be more painful.

Originally Posted by Alter

I think that they should be locked in an 8 by 8 foot cell by themselves, only be given a Bible, and have to eat plain oatmeal for the rest of their lives. I don't have a problem with the death penalty, though. It's just that this would be more painful.

Yes, I do believe being stuck in an eight-foot-eight cell with just the Bible as company would be rather painful. >_>

Originally Posted by TakatoGuil

How is shipping them off to Antarctica to die in the snow morally preferable to giving them a simple shot that kills them quickly and painlessly? They die in both cases, and in both cases we were the killers, as they wouldn't have ended up in Antarctica without our influence.

It's not morally preferable, it just makes for nicer headlines. "man kills 5, is sentenced to Antarctica "for life"". And you could even be fair about it and give them a -50 degree rated sleeping bag. Then they're on their own. But i wasn't really being serious anyway, so we can stop resurrecting this idea.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Yes, I do believe being stuck in an eight-foot-eight cell with just the Bible as company would be rather painful. >_>

Oh, come-off it. If you can flip to song of songs and read about boobs, it can't be all bad.

Originally Posted by morval

It's not morally preferable, it just makes for nicer headlines. "man kills 5, is sentenced to Antarctica "for life"". And you could even be fair about it and give them a -50 degree rated sleeping bag. Then they're on their own. But i wasn't really being serious anyway, so we can stop resurrecting this idea.

Actually I did have the idea of building a prison/penal colony in the south pole one time, but the expenses involved make it not a very preferrable choice. Plus, what kind of builders are willing to go down there?

Oh, come-off it. If you can flip to song of songs and read about boobs, it can't be all bad.

Well yes, but reading the same bit about boobs for the rest of your life might get a bit tedious

Capital Punishment, although a horrific idea on its own, is even worse, given that innocent people are executed for crimes they did not commit.

At least 39 executions have been carried out in the U.S. in the face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt.

In addition, there have been 15 pardons or exonerations of death row inmates in the United States due to the introduction of DNA evidence, not to mention the 100+ who had only been sentenced but not yet placed on death row. Just imagine how many were wrongfully executed before DNA became useful as evidence.

In the United Kingdom, George Kelly and Derek Bentley, two men hanged in the 50s, were exonerated from their crimes within the past 10 years. A little late, dontcha think?

While Capital Punishment alone may be considered to be a poor regard for human life, the fact that so many are wrongfully executed, nay, murdered, for crimes they did not commit is disgraceful. There is no doubt that this still happens today, and until wrongful executions can be eliminated, there is no reason why the death penalty should still be in effect, let alone considered.

It's often said in journalist circles that "It's better a thousand guilty men go free than a single innocent man be imprisoned". Personally, I think death is far worse than imprisonment.

I don't get this...

Some people here would rather drive people insane from isolation and loneliness in a prison for the rest of their lives, paying millions of dollars to keep them in a place where they just go bonkers and from which they can never be freed than to do the humane thing and euthanize them, thus ending decades and scores of years of possible suffering that they would experience without any real hope of any kind?

:/ What are you guys, torturers? After a certain point, it becomes morally *better* to kill someone than to let them live. At the very least, in the case of life sentences, you should let people kill themselves if-ever and whenever they so desire.

Edit:

Also, to Duo -

There are nearly 50,000 deaths every year in the US from automobile accidents (most of them caused by another driver doing something seriously stupid), and yet we all still drive around in exactly the same way and still go the same speeds and travel for the same distances and lengths of time...

I seriously think that, logically speaking, convicting a very few innocent men surely makes up for the downsides to society that would come about if you decided to do serious damage to the punishment aspect of our legal system when you operate on the assumption that everyone who passes out of a courthouse guilty is actually a wrongfully-convicted man. :/

Originally Posted by andi

Also, to Duo -

There are nearly 50,000 deaths every year in the US from automobile accidents (most of them caused by another driver doing something seriously stupid), and yet we all still drive around in exactly the same way and still go the same speeds and travel for the same distances and lengths of time...

I seriously think that, logically speaking, convicting a very few innocent men surely makes up for the downsides to society that would come about if you decided to do serious damage to the punishment aspect of our legal system when you operate on the assumption that everyone who passes out of a courthouse guilty is actually a wrongfully-convicted man. :/

People know the dangers of going out on the road, and they place themselves in that situation. It is a reasonable assumption that by getting into a car, you have a chance of getting in an accident. The chances are slim, but it's a reasonable assumption. In addition to that, anybody who causes a crash intentionally or through means such as drunk driving will be charged for their actions.

On the other hand, it is not a reasonable assumption that you are going to get arrested and charged for something completely out of your hands. You did not intentionally put yourself in a situation where you were going to get charged with something such as murder. In addition to that, and contrary to the driving analogy, the state does not get punished for murdering you. They make the laws, and they control the laws