From the state that watches the most porn

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think executions should be in public if we are going to have them. Let the people see the consequences of their choices, both the voters and the criminals.

Agreed! Because when they used to do public hangings, there were no public hangings because public hangings kept people from committing crimes...

I'm getting an egg / chicken paradox vibe here.

Nevermind the whole problem of people who commit capital crimes... the fuckers usually think they'll get away with it.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think executions should be in public if we are going to have them. Let the people see the consequences of their choices, both the voters and the criminals.

Agreed! Because when they used to do public hangings, there were no public hangings because public hangings kept people from committing crimes...

I'm getting an egg / chicken paradox vibe here.

Nevermind the whole problem of people who commit capital crimes... the fuckers usually think they'll get away with it.

A long time ago, in England, pickpockets were hanged in public. This was actually good for pickpockets because people kept their eyes on the gallows and didn't notice someone's hand in their pocket.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are murders even in supermax prisons.

No shit, Sherlock.

I am slightly disturbed that you imagine this to be a useful contribution to the debate.

Do you have any reason to imagine that capital punishment could eliminate these murders without doing more harm than good?

Or do you think that executing hundreds of wrongfully convicted prisoners for each murder prevented is completely acceptable?

Or more plausibly, did you not stop to think what level of capital punishment would be needed to reduce the rate of murders inside prisons; or what the implications of that number of executions would be on the rate of 'false positives'?

There is no perfect answer. The fact remains that the solutions with the minimum number of non-judicial deaths are also the solutions with the minimum number of executions.

Increasing the number of executions above zero, and/or reducing the amount of prison time served between arrest and execution, does not defend the prison population nor the general population from being unjustly killed; it just exchanges a handful of murders in prison for a large number of miscarriages of justice involving the executions of innocent people.

It saddens me that you cannot seem to grasp this without having it spelled out for you.

The point is the best security we have isn't always enough to stop murder. I'm saying the guys who commit murder in the supermax would likely get the death penalty for it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'd rather consider that the murder victim in the supermax is still someone the US has a responsibility to protect from murder.

It's just odd.

Government employees in uniform can kill people who threaten national security, either at or inside our own borders or who are not cooperating with our national interests outside of our borders. We can shoot to protect items classified Secret and above from treason, espionage or sabotage, or even to prevent the escape of people we suspect of committing such acts. We can shoot to kill in order to stop felonies such as killing, maiming or grievous bodily harm. We can shoot to prevent the escape of suspected felons.
But once we've taken them down, taken them to court, established that they did, to the best of our knowledge, actually DO the thing we could have shot them for suspicion of when they were suspected of doing it, now suddenly it's unsporting to kill him when we're no longer in the heat of the moment, but have had time to deliberate.
Maybe we could build little 7-11's in the prison itself, and just shoot them when they rob it?

 

[bilby]

The only 'reason' to have the death penalty that has any factual support is that it satisfies the victim's, and society's desire for revenge. While this desire is real and undeniable, it is also the antithesis of civilisation; The whole point of having a criminal justice system is to take revenge out of the equation, because revenge is destructive to society itself.

This notion of the death penalty as being the "antithesis of civilization" is just an opinion, it's sentimental claptrap, espoused by navel gazing right on types of privelage. Just admit you're a bit squeamish.

'This notion' is entirely in your own head, and your emotional response to what you thought I might have written is not making your case for rationality at all well.

I did not make a sentimental and emotional connection between the death penalty and civilisation. If you take the time to read what I actually wrote, you will see that it is revenge, not capital punishment, that I describe as 'the antithesis of civilisation'.

Civilisation is built upon the idea that victims have recourse to justice without the need for revenge, with its inevitable escalation into violent disorder and blood feuding.

Revenge is not a civilised reason to take any course of action - revenge is the epitome of uncivilised behaviour.

Given that my earlier argument ruled out other reasons for capital punishment, I conclude, without sentiment or emotion, that it is of no value to a civilised society.

Your reflexive dismissal of my argument as 'sentimental claptrap' might help you to imagine that your support for capital punishment is rational; but it is just a rationalisation - as is your assumption that the only reason to not share your viewpoint is squeamishness.

I am not particularly squeamish about killing. But there is no rational argument for capital punishment - the killing of a prisoner - that is compatible with civilisation; and I value civilisation far more than I value revenge.

 

[Axulus]

This notion of the death penalty as being the "antithesis of civilization" is just an opinion, it's sentimental claptrap, espoused by navel gazing right on types of privelage. Just admit you're a bit squeamish.

'This notion' is entirely in your own head, and your emotional response to what you thought I might have written is not making your case for rationality at all well.

I did not make a sentimental and emotional connection between the death penalty and civilisation. If you take the time to read what I actually wrote, you will see that it is revenge, not capital punishment, that I describe as 'the antithesis of civilisation'.

Civilisation is built upon the idea that victims have recourse to justice without the need for revenge, with its inevitable escalation into violent disorder and blood feuding.

Revenge is not a civilised reason to take any course of action - revenge is the epitome of uncivilised behaviour.

Given that my earlier argument ruled out other reasons for capital punishment, I conclude, without sentiment or emotion, that it is of no value to a civilised society.

Your reflexive dismissal of my argument as 'sentimental claptrap' might help you to imagine that your support for capital punishment is rational; but it is just a rationalisation - as is your assumption that the only reason to not share your viewpoint is squeamishness.

I am not particularly squeamish about killing. But there is no rational argument for capital punishment - the killing of a prisoner - that is compatible with civilisation; and I value civilisation far more than I value revenge.

There is one rational argument I would propose. For cases where the party is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (murder in cold blood caught on clear video, for example), there is a cost savings to be had by executing the guilty party compared to the cost of putting them in prison for life (one estimate puts it at $31,286 per year average for the US, $168,000 for the city of New York: source]

Let's use the average, surely a conservative estimate given that murderers often require a much higher security prison, and more effort/expense must be incurred to prevent their violent nature from being used against other inmates.

If someone is convicted of murder at age 30 (or younger), and they are expected to live until ~80 years, that is 50 years in prison at a total cost of $1,564,000.

This $1,564,000 could instead be spent to feed, house, and clothe innocent and non-violent people.

Compare this to the cost to save a life though the Against Malaria foundation

Cost per life saved

Using $5.30 as the total cost per net in Malawi and $7.50 for DRC, we estimate the cost per child life saved through an AMF-funded LLIN distribution at about $3,340.81

http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/amf#Costperlifesaved

So, the choice is, do we imprison a person guilty beyond all doubt of first-degree murder for $1,564,000+, or do we use that money to instead save ~470+ innocent lives (or some other more worthwhile use, whatever that may be)?

 

[bilby]

'This notion' is entirely in your own head, and your emotional response to what you thought I might have written is not making your case for rationality at all well.

I did not make a sentimental and emotional connection between the death penalty and civilisation. If you take the time to read what I actually wrote, you will see that it is revenge, not capital punishment, that I describe as 'the antithesis of civilisation'.

Civilisation is built upon the idea that victims have recourse to justice without the need for revenge, with its inevitable escalation into violent disorder and blood feuding.

Revenge is not a civilised reason to take any course of action - revenge is the epitome of uncivilised behaviour.

Given that my earlier argument ruled out other reasons for capital punishment, I conclude, without sentiment or emotion, that it is of no value to a civilised society.

Your reflexive dismissal of my argument as 'sentimental claptrap' might help you to imagine that your support for capital punishment is rational; but it is just a rationalisation - as is your assumption that the only reason to not share your viewpoint is squeamishness.

I am not particularly squeamish about killing. But there is no rational argument for capital punishment - the killing of a prisoner - that is compatible with civilisation; and I value civilisation far more than I value revenge.

There is one rational argument I would propose. For cases where the party is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (murder in cold blood caught on clear video, for example), there is a cost savings to be had by executing the guilty party compared to the cost of putting them in prison for life (one estimate puts it at $31,286 per year average for the US, $168,000 for the city of New York: source]

Let's use the average, surely a conservative estimate given that murderers often require a much higher security prison, and more effort/expense must be incurred to prevent their violent nature from being used against other inmates.

If someone is convicted of murder at age 30 (or younger), and they are expected to live until ~80 years, that is 50 years in prison at a total cost of $1,564,000.

This $1,564,000 could instead be spent to feed, house, and clothe innocent and non-violent people.

Compare this to the cost to save a life though the Against Malaria foundation

Cost per life saved

Using $5.30 as the total cost per net in Malawi and $7.50 for DRC, we estimate the cost per child life saved through an AMF-funded LLIN distribution at about $3,340.81

http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/amf#Costperlifesaved

So, the choice is, do we imprison a person guilty beyond all doubt of first-degree murder for $1,564,000+, or do we use that money to instead save ~470+ innocent lives (or some other more worthwhile use, whatever that may be)?

In principle, I would agree; but in practice, the cost of establishing guilt to the current standard for executions is greater than the cost of imprisonment - and even so, there is little doubt that some people are wrongly executed. An accelerated trial and appeal process would cost less; but would result in more wrongful executions.

The cost of imprisonment cannot be saved by the use of capital punishment; only the cost of imprisonment minus the additional costs of capital punishment - including the appeals process.

In practice, it is cheaper to incarcerate an offender for life in the US today than it is to execute him. That could change, depending on the details of the appeals process in capital cases; but a cheaper appeals process would need to be at least as effective in detecting and exonerating the wrongfully accused as the status quo for me to feel comfortable. Any one of us could be wrongfully accused. I for one would like to think that if that happened, some considerable expense and effort would be taken to confirm my guilt before they killed me.

 

[tupac chopra]

A long time ago, in England, pickpockets were hanged in public. This was actually good for pickpockets because people kept their eyes on the gallows and didn't notice someone's hand in their pocket.

And I thought you were joking.
https://tinyurl.com/n7nxtjh
I've tried to link here to page 31 of Robert Hughes's book, The Fatal Shore on google books.
Not sure if it worked though