4 ms·

One thing to remember when talking about criminal punishment. It's not for the criminal and its not for the victim. It's society acting for its own sake. What

by vlehto 10y ago

One thing to remember when talking about criminal punishment. It's not for the criminal and its not for the victim. It's society acting for its own sake. What matters is that crime is not profitable in any situation. Punishment is there to reap away any profitability, but nothing more. Murder gets you life in prison and I think that is justified. But it opens a problem here. Once you do one murder, second, third and fourth only increase your risk of getting caught. The punishment stays the same. There is specific case where death penalty would make some sense. If you are caught on the act. Killing witnesses should get you worse punishment than the original murder. But this gets tricky very quickly on many occasions.

e40 10y ago
Caught in the act isn't a clear cut thing. Witnesses have been known to be wrong. In fact, identification of people you don't know is a very tricky thing. I read an article recently about a man in AZ that was identified twice as the perp in robberies, and even though he had an alibi for both, the prosecutor ruined his life (lost job, drained bank account, divorce). The problem was, he looked amazingly like the perp (there was video). Had he not had a job with video showing he was there, he would most certainly have been convicted of those to robberies. If this had been a capital murder case, he could have been convicted on eyewitness testimony. Wrongly.
- vlehto 10y ago
  Yes it's tricky. But it's also quite nasty that in some police sieges the perpetrator has absolutely nothing to lose anymore, except his life. So if he kills several policemen and manages to escape, it's still good deal. If that doesn't look likely, surrender and get the exact same life in prison you would have gotten anyhow. Knowing this dynamic, the police is incentive to use sharpshooters early in the situation. Which is essentially death penalty without due process.
  - knz 10y ago
    Google tells me that the average time on death row is ~15 years. I'm not sure the average criminal weighs the difference between life or 15 years when contemplating murder. I also believe that sentencing for crimes are compounded in the US - so you might get 15 years for each murder, 10 years for robbing a bank with a weapon, 5 years for robbery, 5 years for using a weapon in a crime etc - effectively a "life" sentence. Also, is being shot by a sharpshooter the death penalty without due process or a reasonable effort to preserve the lives of innocent people who may be involved?
    - vlehto 10y ago
      To me 15 years for murder sounds low. Even for Nordic country standards. My understanding is that the ~15 years is because the convicts try everything to get the sentence repelled. Which signals that "death sentence" is really something they consider lot worse than being in prison. There has been research that humans are unable to accurately discern more than 3 years into future. I don't think 15 vs. 30 vs. 45 years makes much difference. But 20 years vs. lethal injection, there is obvious difference in the quality of the punishment. >Also, is being shot by a sharpshooter the death penalty without due process or a reasonable effort to preserve the lives of innocent people who may be involved? You could claim that any death penalty is exactly that. No matter which position you take, the best situation in either case would be the perpetrator turning in and getting that due process.

by vlehto 10y ago

e40 10y ago

Caught in the act isn't a clear cut thing. Witnesses have been known to be wrong. In fact, identification of people you don't know is a very tricky thing. I read an article recently about a man in AZ that was identified twice as the perp in robberies, and even though he had an alibi for both, the prosecutor ruined his life (lost job, drained bank account, divorce). The problem was, he looked amazingly like the perp (there was video). Had he not had a job with video showing he was there, he would most certainly have been convicted of those to robberies. If this had been a capital murder case, he could have been convicted on eyewitness testimony. Wrongly.

vlehto 10y ago
Yes it's tricky. But it's also quite nasty that in some police sieges the perpetrator has absolutely nothing to lose anymore, except his life. So if he kills several policemen and manages to escape, it's still good deal. If that doesn't look likely, surrender and get the exact same life in prison you would have gotten anyhow. Knowing this dynamic, the police is incentive to use sharpshooters early in the situation. Which is essentially death penalty without due process.
- knz 10y ago
  Google tells me that the average time on death row is ~15 years. I'm not sure the average criminal weighs the difference between life or 15 years when contemplating murder. I also believe that sentencing for crimes are compounded in the US - so you might get 15 years for each murder, 10 years for robbing a bank with a weapon, 5 years for robbery, 5 years for using a weapon in a crime etc - effectively a "life" sentence. Also, is being shot by a sharpshooter the death penalty without due process or a reasonable effort to preserve the lives of innocent people who may be involved?
  - vlehto 10y ago
    To me 15 years for murder sounds low. Even for Nordic country standards. My understanding is that the ~15 years is because the convicts try everything to get the sentence repelled. Which signals that "death sentence" is really something they consider lot worse than being in prison. There has been research that humans are unable to accurately discern more than 3 years into future. I don't think 15 vs. 30 vs. 45 years makes much difference. But 20 years vs. lethal injection, there is obvious difference in the quality of the punishment. >Also, is being shot by a sharpshooter the death penalty without due process or a reasonable effort to preserve the lives of innocent people who may be involved? You could claim that any death penalty is exactly that. No matter which position you take, the best situation in either case would be the perpetrator turning in and getting that due process.