Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[The Grand Nudger]

We can and do. I'd put the proceeds from the us for profit prison system up against a colonial era penal colony any day. It's worth half as much as australias current gdp.

[Jehanne]

As a hard-line death penalty opponent, I do absolutely oppose the execution of war criminals (including Nazis). I do not believe ‘every life has value’. There is no conflict between these positions.

Boru

Would you elaborate further? What is the reasoning behind Nazi criminals not being executed?

Death is annihilation, and so, an execution, once completed, is no longer punishment. If you want to punish murderers, leave them in prison.

[Macoleco]

Would you elaborate further? What is the reasoning behind Nazi criminals not being executed?

Death is annihilation, and so, an execution, once completed, is no longer punishment.  If you want to punish murderers, leave them in prison.

I get your point. But in the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis who commited the worse crimes were the ones executed. Rest were imprisoned. Ending someone's life is considered a greater punishment than imprisonment, at least socially.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Death is annihilation, and so, an execution, once completed, is no longer punishment.  If you want to punish murderers, leave them in prison.

I get your point. But in the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis who commited the worse crimes were the ones executed. Rest were imprisoned. Ending someone's life is considered a greater punishment than imprisonment, at least socially.

But societies don’t execute people to punish them, regardless of what people tell themselves. Societies execute criminals so the masses can feel better about themselves. According to your profile, you’re 27 years old. It’s perfectly possible that you could live another 50-60 years. Assuming, for the sake of argument, you were convicted of some horrific crime. Which would you consider to be the greater punishment: a quick, clean and relatively painless death, or five decades locked in a cage with assorted killers, rapists, and child molesters, every minute of your day regimented - told what to eat, when to eat, when to sleep, when to relieve yourself, and told this by gangs of sadistic guards who could - at any moment - brutalize you without a qualm or repercussions?

THAT is punishment.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Death is annihilation, and so, an execution, once completed, is no longer punishment.  If you want to punish murderers, leave them in prison.

I get your point. But in the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis who commited the worse crimes were the ones executed. Rest were imprisoned. Ending someone's life is considered a greater punishment than imprisonment, at least socially.

That's the typical religious attitude -- "After death comes judgment."

[Rev. Rye]

Death is annihilation, and so, an execution, once completed, is no longer punishment.  If you want to punish murderers, leave them in prison.

I get your point. But in the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis who commited the worse crimes were the ones executed. Rest were imprisoned. Ending someone's life is considered a greater punishment than imprisonment, at least socially.

Well, seven were imprisoned. And after 20 years, all but Rudolf Hess were out. And if you want to include all the other trials in that assessment, short prison sentences were the rule rather than the exception. And many of those who committed crimes under the Nazi regime never saw the inside of a prison cell, due at least in part to the crimes being of such a scale that punishing everyone would involve putting the majority of the population under lock and key.

[bennyboy]

I don't like the death penalty because it's far too easy on the recipient. Let 'em spend the rest of their days wondering why they're behind bars. And if they're unrepentant, oh well. They get the misery of lifetime confinement.

The problem with justice is that it lessons the intensity of our efforts to prevent.  It gives the illusion that there can be balance in the world, and that we are the bringers of balance, through punishment.

I recommend treating crime prevention as a procedural issue, not a justice issue.  A dead man is much cheaper, and has an infinitely lower chance of recommitting his crimes. Making tax payers support this guy for $50k / year or whatever in order to torture him psychologically when he can just be removed-- I'd rather have improved health care and a few less pot holes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't like the death penalty because it's far too easy on the recipient. Let 'em spend the rest of their days wondering why they're behind bars. And if they're unrepentant, oh well. They get the misery of lifetime confinement.

The problem with justice is that it lessons the intensity of our efforts to prevent.  It gives the illusion that there can be balance in the world, and that we are the bringers of balance, through punishment.

I recommend treating crime prevention as a procedural issue, not a justice issue.  A dead man is much cheaper, and has an infinitely lower chance of recommitting his crimes.  Making tax payers support this guy for $50k / year or whatever in order to torture him psychologically when he can just be removed-- I'd rather have improved health care and a few less pot holes.

It's actually MORE costly to taxpayers to execute someone than it is to incarcerate them long term. I mean, unless you want to scrap all that pesky, pricey stuff like lawyers, evidence, appeals...you know - 'rights'.

Boru

[Macoleco]

The problem with justice is that it lessons the intensity of our efforts to prevent.  It gives the illusion that there can be balance in the world, and that we are the bringers of balance, through punishment.

I recommend treating crime prevention as a procedural issue, not a justice issue.  A dead man is much cheaper, and has an infinitely lower chance of recommitting his crimes.  Making tax payers support this guy for $50k / year or whatever in order to torture him psychologically when he can just be removed-- I'd rather have improved health care and a few less pot holes.

It's actually MORE costly to taxpayers to execute someone than it is to incarcerate them long term. I mean, unless you want to scrap all that pesky, pricey stuff like lawyers, evidence, appeals...you know - 'rights'.

Boru

Don’t you have to pay for that even if the person is imprisoned?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's actually MORE costly to taxpayers to execute someone than it is to incarcerate them long term. I mean, unless you want to scrap all that pesky, pricey stuff like lawyers, evidence, appeals...you know - 'rights'.

Boru

Don’t you have to pay for that even if the person is imprisoned?

Capital crimes typically have longer pre-trial periods, more extensive forensic testing, more (and more complex) appeals, higher legal fees (almost always paid - on both sides - by taxpayers, more expensive security (both pre-trial and after sentencing), etc.

On average in the US (practically the only Western nation that still engages in this nonsense), it costs roughly one million dollars to execute someone. The average incarceration costs are about 35K per year. Since the average time between sentencing and execution is 19 years, this means that it costs $335 000 more to lock someone up for 20 years and then let them out than it costs to lock someone up for 20 years and then kill them.

Boru