Capital Punishment

[The Valkyrie]

I'm fully aware of the countries that still have capital punishment.

Some have public executions, which I don't support.

Some have brutal forms of execution, which I don't support.

Some kill criminals who commit crimes that I don't agree should be punishable by death.

Some execute without full due process.

None of that I agree with.

As I stated, if there's absolutely no doubt, I think some crimes, and some degree of crimes, should be punishable with a quick removal from the planet.

I understand what you’re saying and I appreciate that you have a much more nuanced view of this issue than a lot of people.

But as more and more nations abolish the death penalty (while some keep it on the books but opt not to use it), I simply feel it’s time to consign it to the ash can of history.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Boru

Exactly.

I'm happy for it to be abolished and to never rause it's ugly head again. But I also think that our laws and sentences are becoming too weak.

There have ti be guarantees that certain classes of offender should never be on the streets again or are at least off them for a long time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It doesn't work, it's expensive, and rationalizations for it are hilariously inept.

Zero recidivism rate. That works like a motherfucker.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why? Those guarantees don't reduce crime.

I totally get the idea of capital punishment as how we feel when we consider whatever it is that we think is truly evil and depraved, but given your comments above, you also seem to understand that this reaction isn't good policy.

I think that it might be more accurate to say that you aren't for capital punishment, but that in your heart of hearts you hope assholes get what's coming to them and more.

---

It doesn't work, it's expensive, and rationalizations for it are hilariously inept.

Zero recidivism rate. That works like a motherfucker.

More than a few people have been executed for committing no crime, there was no possibility of recidivism, and I fail to see how killing a murderer stops them from killing in a way that locking them up doesn't.

This is being contextualized improperly. Nothing that a killer does is the issue. Killers gonna kill. The issue is not them, it's what we do. We're the executioners. Their acts are reprehensible, perhaps unforgivable, and maybe some of them can't be redeemed. They're fucked up people and nobody cares about them, any harm or punishment that could be imagined would fit -them-.

-is that also true of us?

If a man threw down his rifle, and was in the brig...on what rationale would you then shoot him?

[The Valkyrie]

Some have public executions, which I don't support.

Is the idea here that it's made better by hiding it from public view? I think that it's only made easier to swallow. The people who see executions and the people who perform them generally regret having ever seen just the one.

The others, a thousand times yes. There are all sorts of ways that the process can go south, even further south, that is...but that does seem to lead right into the next bit.

As I stated, if there's absolutely no doubt, I think some crimes, and some degree of crimes, should be punishable with a quick removal from the planet.

Can't be done.  The business of execution can't be done swiftly and justly.  No amount of certainty internally held or even legally pronounced removes the states responsibility to provide due process.

Nope. Nothing to do with hiding it.

There are some things, as far as I'm concerned, that should not be for public view. Executions are one of them. Another us child birth.

A quick bullet to the back of the head seems fairly quick and efficient. We also quickly kill sick animals with a single injection. If it can be done for a dog, it can be done for a human.

But I'll repeat my stipulation: 100% certainty

Also, as I've stated, life in prison should mean life.

I had an acquaintance who was strangled to death by her boyfriend in the early 2000s.

He got "life" and is now free to get on with his life. She's rotting in the ground. Her life over.

Why should he be free?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope.  Nothing to do with hiding it.

The only difference between a public execution and a private one is that the latter is hidden from view.

There are some things, as far as I'm concerned, that should not be for public view.  Executions are one of them.  Another us child birth.

We have differences of opinion here.  I think that people seeing executions and death would help to solve some of the thornier issues around that just as much as seeing childbirth in a clear light would help with things like teen pregnancy and attitudes surrounding it.

A quick bullet to the back of the head seems fairly quick and efficient.  We also quickly kill sick animals with a single injection.  If it can be done for a dog, it can be done for a human.

It's very efficient, but it's never just.  We do kill sick animals, and we should allow sick people the same mercy - but a man on death row is rarely a man begging for the a sweet release of death.

But I'll repeat my stipulation: 100% certainty

Not possible, but it's a given for conversation.

Also, as I've stated, life in prison should mean life.

Meh, it should mean as long as it takes to demonstrate that a person is no longer a danger to their fellow man.  If that's life, that's life.  If it's not, it would be unjust to keep a reformed criminal in jail forever on account of some other asshole never managing to give a shit.

I had an acquaintance who was strangled to death by her boyfriend in the early 2000s.

That's unfortunate.  I've seen alot of death myself.  It's always painful and difficult.

He got "life" and is now free to get on with his life.  She's rotting in the ground.  Her life over.

Why should he be free?

Because he satisfied his debt under law.  We live in a world where people kill people, and that will never not be true, particularly if our response to living in that world is to kill people.  Perhaps he's served his time and taken stock of himself and his decisions.  Perhaps not, and he's out because of some little legal loophole....but it's rarely the case that western justice is merciful and understanding - despite broad public perception of it's alleged weakness. 

If that were true, it would be an argument for criminal justice reform, not capital punishment - in either direction.

Why is he still alive and she's not?  Because he's a killer..and we're not...or, at least not always, or we'd rather not be. Would it be fair to say that you understand and agree with the arguments against the death penalty, but that this doesn't change the way you feel about your friend's murderer. That you feel the way that you feel, but understand that this should not be an official policy of the state? That when you think of the death penalty, you think of him...and that would disqualify you even in your own eyes as a fair and just arbiter of his fate, or the fates of others subjected to the same process of sanctioned killing.

[brewer]

A sentence of life without parole should come with a free suicide kit.

[Little lunch]

I would like to say that I am against capital punishment for all the reasons people usually are and that have been stated thus far here.
But there are crimes I would personally kill a person for and I don't like to be a hypocrite.
But if I'm allowed to be a hypocrite, then yes, I'm against CP.

[Rev. Rye]

I say no. 
Killing people who kill people isn't a good image. 
It also doesn't do anything to protect or deter that incarceration doesn't already do

And our justice system is geared around money. Legal costs are ridiculously high and if u can't afford them then your screwed. 
On the other hand if u can afford a good defence council then the guilty can walk like OJ Simpson

But what do u think??? Should the death penalty be allowed???

It's weird, but for once, I actually agree with you. It's cruel, the possibility of executing an innocent person is too high for it to be acceptable, there's a very clear consensus among those who actually study it that it doesn't deter (funny thing, around 1993, Hong Kong abolished the death penalty and Singapore stepped it up. Shit did not change. And something tells me that when Britain had 220 total crimes punishable by death, none of their rates declined), the appeals process is extremely expensive and doing away with it would just make everything more barbaric. Literally the only reason that holds up in any way is "why should someone like Ted Bundy deserve to live?" And even that, I'd probably be okay with it being made available solely on request of the prisoner.

[Agnostico]

EditP, very interesting that you picked OJ. There have been so many other highly publicized killings/trials since then, why him as your example?

I dunno, he just came to mind

[Pat Mustard]

When they can make the legal process infallible and cost effective I might consider it.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't mind seeing a few specific people whacked.

EditP, very interesting that you picked OJ. There have been so many other highly publicized killings/trials since then, why him as your example?

Easy, black man who was found innocent despite good evidence indicating guilt. In agnodtico's little neo-nazi mind, black people are automatically guilty.