8 ms·

I would offer yet another point of view: people are generally so inept, that if it is justice one wants, a death penalty should be avoided since the chances of

• briandear 10y ago
  We could apply the same logic to life imprisonment. An innocent person forced to endure the absolute horror or life imprisonment -- I would rather die. What's the difference? Dead or locked in a horrible box for life? We euthanize sick cats; we don't make them suffer needlessly. I would argue life imprisonment is a punishment more severe than death. Just by way of disclosure, I have witnessed two executions in Texas back when I worked for Reuters. I spent a lot of time on death row, interviewing prisoners as well as families, so I don't have a positive feeling about the death penalty... however I contend that life inprisonment is even worse.
  • slazaro 10y ago
    If you're imprisoned for years and then found to be actually innocent, you can go home. That can't happen if they already chopped your head off.
    • gaius 10y ago
      No you can't - because your home no longer exists, and I don't just mean bricks and mortar.
      • geggam 10y ago
        You can however, make a new home.
        • DanBC 10y ago
          The emotional damage makes that hard.
          • waterphone 10y ago
            Hard is better than impossible.
        • gaius 10y ago
          But the world has moved on, you have no employable skills, there is stigma still attached to having been inside... And the compensation is a paltry amount and you will be billed for your food and accomodation while inside (yes really).
          • GavinMcG 10y ago
            Then you can kill yourself. But you undeniably have more freedom and opportunity than a dead person.
          • jessaustin 10y ago
            ...you will be billed for your food and accomodation while inside That's a bill that probably won't get paid. What are they going to do, throw me in prison?
            • gaius 10y ago
              I believe it gets extracted before you get your compensation paid.
              • zanny 10y ago
                That is so awful on so many levels. "Hey, we kept you locked up against your will, but you did eat our prison food, so we're going to take that out of the money we should be paying you for imprisoning the innocent".
  • VLM 10y ago
    "however I contend that life inprisonment is even worse" Possibly that's an appropriate punishment then, for the very worst of offenders.
    • zeveb 10y ago
      I honestly think that life imprisonment is an atrocity. Long-term imprisonment in general is a racket, too: what difference is there really between an eleven- and a twelve-year sentence? Why does every inmate automatically start off with ⅔ of his sentence, and then get extra days added for bad behaviour? I think above a few months, imprisonment probably isn't the answer. We should explore alternatives: corporal punishment (wouldn't you rather a single lash than a year in prison?), fines, slavery (why not make someone who commits manslaughter work for the victim's family for a decade, rather than sit in prison for a decade?) and, yes, execution (which is, I contend, more humane than long-term imprisonment). I don't really know what the answer is, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't involve years of prison.
      • colejohnson66 10y ago
        Couldn't community service be viewed as a form of slave labor? (not literally, but to an extent)
        • zeveb 10y ago
          > Couldn't community service be viewed as a form of slave labor? (not literally, but to an extent) I think it literally is, which is why I think requiring it in order to graduate from high school or college is uncouth and unconstitutional (likewise, the draft). I have no problem with it as a punishment for crime, although I do have concerns about the efficacy and efficiency of how it is administered. Does it make sense for someone with high-value skills to be cleaning toilets as community service?
  • fsloth 10y ago
    I was not saying that the justice system should avoid pain to the guilty but rather work on a principle of least harm. If a person has slain several people, and it is likely he will do so again, society might be better off with the person locked away. A life imprisonment can be, if not canceled, then terminated and amended financially. It of course depends on the nature of the prison. I would claim it could be just like a regular apartment - except you can't leave. There is no reason for it to be doomy , gloomy and grimy if the raison detre is to protect the society from the person locked away. I think norway's treatment of prisoners is great example of how to do this as sensibly as possible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway
    • kahrkunne 10y ago
      One of the major purposes of prisons is deterrence, and for that prisons need to be awful.
      • yusee 10y ago
        In theory, harsh prison conditions deter would-be criminals. Do you have any evidence that reality conforms to this theory?
        • tmptmp 10y ago
          >>Do you have any evidence that reality conforms to this theory? Do you have any evidence that reality doesn't conform to this theory? Not a counter-question just for the sake of counter-questioning; I am sincerely interested in knowing.
          • orkoden 10y ago
            The US has harsh sentences and high crime.
            • 67726e 10y ago
  • hx87 10y ago
    Why not make it a choice for the prisoner to make then? Perhaps we could have life in prison by default, but make humane state-assisted suicide available at any time.
• omginternets 10y ago
  People are quick to argue that a life sentence can be reverted with the underlying assumption that all damage is reversed. I don't buy this for an instant.
  • fsloth 10y ago
    Well, the point is not necessarily that it can be reversed. The point is that society takes the stand that taking a human life, no matter how debased, is barbarous. Of course, this takes us to euthanasia and abortion territory, so we could modify this by saying that taking a human life without a deathwhish and consent is barbarous - just as prolonging life beyond a certain point. A good example of a candidate for life imprisonment is a mass murderer who has obviously shot tens of peoples without any remorse and boasts doing it again. The crime is not debatable - the question then remains - how should a society respond to such a situation.
    • omginternets 10y ago
      This was in response to the specific argument that life sentences can be reversed, which I don't think constitutes a strong argument.
      • fsloth 10y ago
        Ah, yes now I see your point. I agree, it confounds the discussion.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • asolove 10y ago
    You don't see a difference between "it's ten years later and we are going to free you, sorry" and "it's ten years later and you're dead, sorry"? Neither is good enough, of course, but one is still a hell of a lot better. The argument isn't that a life sentence can be fully reversed, just that it can be modified later, which death cannot be.
• saalweachter 10y ago
  So if there were convincing evidence, I would change my mind on whether or not anthropogenic climate change were happening or what our response to it should be. The right evidence would make me change my mind on whether motorcycle helmets are effective or whether separated bicycle lanes are good policy. Whether a welfare state furthers the public good. There are reasonable arguments you can make about the death penalty, like uncertainty or cost or efficacy as a deterrent. They may even convince some people. But a lot of people have an axiomatic view of the death penalty. I personally hold the belief that killing is bad, and should be avoided, with some complicated feels towards self defense. I may make all of the arguments above trying to convince people to oppose the death penalty. Hell, I may consider lying about the statistics. But they won't change my mind. If it's more expensive to not execute people or less effective at deterring crime, I'll still oppose the death penalty. Uncertainty is no different. There is always uncertainty of varying degrees. There will be cases where the convicted is almost certainly guilty. Imagine a suspect commits his capital crime in full few of a large crowd of unbiased witnesses, many of who knew him personally and can clearly identify him. Moreover, he was taken into custody immediately after committing the crime, by police officers who also witnessed the crime. He gave an unforced confession, gave details not available to anyone else, and offers no remorse. He is mentally competent by any measure. Add in any other caveats you'd like. If you are still opposed to the death penalty in this particular case, well, then you're not really concerned about the uncertainty, you're just opposed to the death penalty. If you aren't opposed to the death penalty in this case, then isn't it really just a matter of improving our definitions of "reasonable doubt" for capital cases?
  • saganus 10y ago
    I would argue that one extra point of interest would be the definition of the crimes that are considered worthy of capital punishment. I think people could fall into a spectrum between the axiomatic views you present depending on what is considered a capital offense. For example I might be in favor of capital punishment but only in cases of war crimes. In that case, for almost all intents and purposes I'm against death penalty since I only approve of it in extreme cases, versus someone that is in favor of death penalty for rapists (assuming there is no uncertainty like in your example), since I could indeed imagine a rape victim that would like to have the rapist dead. So I agree that if you have an axiomatic view as you put it, the rest of the (non-axiomatic) factors will not be of relevance to you, but then the problem becomes defining on which side of the slide do you consider your view to be axiomatic. My point is that this almost seems as a sort of "fractal" discussion in the sense that you can always think of yet another factor that would establish different positions for two people although they might seemingly have the "same" axiomatic view, and that makes it very hard to discuss this subject without polarizing people.