The Death Penalty

[Bomb#20]

I'm not advocating executing stupid or unlucky people.

No, just the mentally ill.

I mean you talk about it like mental illness is something that is easy to just conclude on. You talk like a person who has nothing more than a "gut" level understanding of psychology.

Heck, we going to put a needle in a psychopath, but let the guy who murdered his wife so he could pork someone half his age live in the prison until he can get parole? At least the mentally unwell person might have not actually known better. The Menendez Brothers who murdered their parents and tried to cover it via lies of abuse live in prison while we kill the mentally ill. It'd almost seem like it should be the other way around.

Your argument takes for granted that the Menendez brothers and the guy who murdered his wife so he could pork someone half his age are not mentally ill. That strikes me as a dubious premise.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am solipsistic (or narcissistic) enough to give my own views on capital punishment, despite that those views are incomplete and useless.

First and foremost, states like Texas (or perhaps the entire U.S.A. more generally) have too bad a justice system to be allowed to execute convicts. Their justice is too racist, and too likely to convict innocent persons. There are several instances where states like Texas have gone forward with executions despite significant reason to think the condemned person was actually innocent.

But what about a hypothetical country, where innocent persons were found innocent, and justice was applied equally without racial biases? In that case I regard the treatment of the convicted murderer as irrelevant. Less than 0.001% of the population will ever be charged with murder. Is it important whether a small number of murderers be executed or spend their lives in prison instead? No. What IS important is the message society sends to the 99.999% who are non-murderers. Does society want to send the message "Crime will be punished" or the message "No human is beyond redemption" ?

So which message should society send? Both messages have some validity. Which message is more useful may depend on the particular status of the society. But Americans need not ponder this moral quandary: U.S. justice is simply too flawed to allow capital punishment.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Should the government be trusted to kill people?

 

[bilby]

Should the government be trusted to kill people?

Given that it now spends ~50% of its discretionary budget on the military, I would say that it’s a bit too late to start asking that question.

 

[TomC]

Or in other words, "I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."

I was more brief than thorough and nuanced.

Self defense is definitely a thing. If someone feels legitimately under attack by someone else they should respond appropriately. Responding is morally different from attacking.

If it gets so dire that defense requires lethal response, then the responder isn't choosing death for someone. They're choosing who will die. But the choice to kill has been made by the assailant. The responder is just choosing that it be the assailant dying, instead of them.

It's worth keeping in mind, though, that the reason Gandhi was able to save India with nonviolence was that the people oppressing India were good people.

Here's another good Ghandi story. It's been years ago, so I'll paraphrase.

Young Man: But Ghandi, you can't always be a pacifist.
What if you were walking down a dark alley and some murderers with knives attacked you.
You'd have to fight back!

Ghandi: I don't go into dark alleys.

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not advocating executing stupid or unlucky people.

No, just the mentally ill.

I mean you talk about it like mental illness is something that is easy to just conclude on. You talk like a person who has nothing more than a "gut" level understanding of psychology.

Heck, we going to put a needle in a psychopath, but let the guy who murdered his wife so he could pork someone half his age live in the prison until he can get parole? At least the mentally unwell person might have not actually known better. The Menendez Brothers who murdered their parents and tried to cover it via lies of abuse live in prison while we kill the mentally ill. It'd almost seem like it should be the other way around.

Your argument takes for granted that the Menendez brothers and the guy who murdered his wife so he could pork someone half his age are not mentally ill. That strikes me as a dubious premise.

Depends on how broad you want to make the term "mentally ill".

 

[TSwizzle]

I oppose the death penalty because the cops make mistakes, judges make mistakes, jurors make mistakes, and appeal judges make mistakes.

How about Jeffrey Dahmer. Do you think there were any mistakes made in his conviction and he was possibly innocent?

Jeffrey Dahmer was not sentenced to death but sentenced to life imprisonment for 17 murders.

That doesn't answer the question. Many people say they are against the death penalty for fear of killing an innocent person. There is no doubt Dahmer is guilty so for my purposes, he's eligible for being executed. Immediately.

Do I think he should have been executed by the state? My emotional response is that I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again. My rational response is that he should have been sentenced to life, without any chance of parole, my only concern for him being in the general population being for the safety of his fellow prisoners and everyone who came into contact with him.

The more rational response is Dahmer be euthanized.

When the state decides to execute someone, it is making every citizen a party to the taking of another human being’s life.

I am fine with that.

 

[TomC]

There is no doubt Dahmer is guilty so for my purposes, he's eligible for being executed. Immediately.

Call me a hardcore ProLifer if you must, but I disagree.
I'm not OK with people feeling entitled to choose death for other people, except in self defense. Dahmer in prison wasn't a threat to anyone.

That said, I wouldn't have lost any sleep over him in front of a firing squad. My give a damn was way busted.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I oppose the death penalty because the cops make mistakes, judges make mistakes, jurors make mistakes, and appeal judges make mistakes.

How about Jeffrey Dahmer. Do you think there were any mistakes made in his conviction and he was possibly innocent?

Jeffrey Dahmer was not sentenced to death but sentenced to life imprisonment for 17 murders.

That doesn't answer the question. Many people say they are against the death penalty for fear of killing an innocent person. There is no doubt Dahmer is guilty so for my purposes, he's eligible for being executed. Immediately.

Do I think he should have been executed by the state? My emotional response is that I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again. My rational response is that he should have been sentenced to life, without any chance of parole, my only concern for him being in the general population being for the safety of his fellow prisoners and everyone who came into contact with him.

The more rational response is Dahmer be euthanized.

When the state decides to execute someone, it is making every citizen a party to the taking of another human being’s life.

I am fine with that.

The potential of executing a person not guilty of the crime is one reason to oppose the dearth penalty. But I oppose the death penalty because I believe that it is morally wrong for the government to execute a person. Full stop. Even though I understand the practical and emotional reasons to do so.

 

[Tigers!]

The premise that some human beings are entitled to choose death for other human beings doesn't work for me. That premise is one of the worst assumptions humans make. The biggest cause of degradation to the human situation.

To me, that's the meaning of "immoral". People feeling entitled to degrade the human situation. From war to environmental destruction, from abortion to capital punishment, it's all immoral.

People choosing death for other people is the root of all evil.
Tom

Or in other words, "I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."

It's worth keeping in mind, though, that the reason Gandhi was able to save India with nonviolence was that the people oppressing India were good people. Gandhi recommended to his country's British oppressors that they likewise save their own country from their own oppressor with nonviolence too. Are any of us in any doubt about how that would have worked out?

If Gandhi had tried his non-violence against a Stalin or a Pol Pot the results would have been very nasty.

 

[Wiploc]

A major topic, the death penalty. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? ...

... the death penalty. Is it cruel and unusual punishment?

I read Figures of Speech: Sixty Ways to Turn a Phrase;
I now believe that "cruel and unusual" means "unusually
cruel." So, where the death penalty is common, it is not,
by definition, unusually cruel.

I doubt the founders would have thought so.

Right. They did executions back then, so executions weren't weird, weren't unusual.

Here in Washington in 1980. [details of a case] Should such a person forfeit his life for having taken three lives?

Should he? I may not understand the question.

The motives for punishment are rehabilitation, deterrence, isolation, and vengeance.

1. Rehabilitation: This generally doesn't work. People tend get harder in prison, worse, more damaged, more dangerous. In this particular case, the authorities say the perp is reformed, but you are skeptical. Maybe this has to do with a mistrust of psychiatrists? We know what the person did, but we don't know whether he'll do it again. And because we don't know, we want him in custody.

Squeaky Fromme tried to murder President Ford, and then, according to her lawyers, she reformed. I don't care whether she thinks she is reformed, whether experts think she is reformed, whether she is actually reformed. You shouldn't get to walk around free after trying to kill a president. Maybe this is a deterrence trumping rehabilitation: I want it seen that bad things happen to those who try to overthrow the government.

In any case, rehabilitation is a weak reed. We warehouse criminals; we don't cure them.

2. Deterrence: Experts -- them again -- say the death penalty causes more killing, not less. The death penalty, like a violent video game, stimulates people to go out and kill.

If so, then I'm against executing this perp and all others. It's not that I care about him. It might be cool if a cellmate stabbed him. But the government shouldn't have a policy that gets more people murdered.

And anyway, even if the experts are right, if we wanted the death penalty to provide significant deterrence, we wouldn't need an electric chair; we'd need electric bleachers. Executions would have to be quick, and they'd have to happen wholesale.

I've known too many bad judges to think that's a good idea.

3. Isolation has some promise. Typhoid Mary was locked up for life. It wasn't even a criminal case. She was infected, and she insisted in working in kitchens, so County Health put her in storage permanently. Isolated her so she couldn't repeat her crime.

I think a big part of demand for the death penalty is the fear that bad people will be parolled. Secure isolation, an actual never-to-be-parolled life sentence, would lessen our desire for a death penalty.

4. Vengeance isn't a proper function of government. Killing for the gratification of the people may be understandable in circumstances, but -- if it is to be done at all -- you should do it yourself, not ask your government to do it.

Conclusion: In individual cases, the death sentence may seem like fun, but I suspect it's not good policy to have a governmental execution system in place.

 

[Jarhyn]

Conclusion: In individual cases, the death sentence may seem like fun, but I suspect it's not good policy to have a governmental execution system in place.

I disagree. For individuals who have significant political power and have displayed repeated brazen use of it to subvert the peaceful exchange of power, and for whom stochastic terrorism is not only a potential ability but a reified one, and who knows secrets which they could divulge to parties adjacent to them, no matter how well meaning those parties are, to negative effect, I support whole heatedly laws designed to remove them from the earth.

What else do you do with a person who has a head full of nuclear secrets that not even the most well meaning jail guards should be burdened with keeping, and who if they manage to communicate can order hits by a sycophantic mob, and who relishes greatly in doing so and in the sewing of chaos, and for which there are human agents seeking to infiltrate so as to exfiltrate such chaos?

It's kind of like bomb disposal: we don't leave unstable shit capable of going boom, and the only way to keep something that unstable from causing terrible consequences is controlled disposal.

 

[Wiploc]

Conclusion: In individual cases, the death sentence may seem like fun, but I suspect it's not good policy to have a governmental execution system in place.

I disagree. For individuals who have significant political power and have displayed repeated brazen use of it to subvert the peaceful exchange of power, and for whom stochastic terrorism is not only a potential ability but a reified one, and who knows secrets which they could divulge to parties adjacent to them, no matter how well meaning those parties are, to negative effect, I support whole heatedly laws designed to remove them from the earth.

[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, we elected them. You think that if we replaced the pensions, honors, and secret service details with executions, then we'd get better presidents?

What else do you do with a person who has a head full of nuclear secrets that not even the most well meaning jail guards should be burdened with keeping, and who if they manage to communicate can order hits by a sycophantic mob, and who relishes greatly in doing so and in the sewing of chaos, and for which there are human agents seeking to infiltrate so as to exfiltrate such chaos?

[/QUOTE]

I don't know much about the Dryfus case. Oh, wait, you're describing Ghandi from the British perspective?

It's kind of like bomb disposal: we don't leave unstable shit capable of going boom, and the only way to keep something that unstable from causing terrible consequences is controlled disposal.

So, Abraham, Martin, and John? Or were those extracaricular?

We know Nixon and Trump used government assets to persecute their enemies. We must assume there were others. We must assume there will be more in the future. I don't like leaving a mechanism in place that they can use to execute political opponants with plausible justification.

Let me make clear that I do not oppose the death penalty in principle: Some people need killing.

What I object to is handing that power to idiot judges and corrupt politicians, and saying, "Here's something you can do to [blacks and liberals] without getting your hands dirty." You may of course substitute for the part in brackets.

 

[steve_bank]

What is meant by Star Chamber?

The term star chamber refers pejoratively to any secret or closed meeting held by a judicial or executive body, or to a court proceeding that seems grossly unfair or that is used to persecute an individual.

The objection I have to the death penalty is primarily irreversible error.

Here in Seattle fear of police and prosecution does not seem to limit assaults and murders.

The trditional argument was the death penalty was a deterrent.

Is the death penalty cruel and unusual? In itself I do not think so.

Some progressives today argue incarceration is cruel and unusual punishment. The idea being criminals are victims of society.

It coes down to what is necessary to maintain civil order. Here in the Seattle area reducng fear increases crime. It s not just me, politician are cumming around to realizing the progressive policies on crime have made things worse.

Yesterday on camera the mayor of Everetet Wa said the derimnalizng of drigs while well intentioned only made things worse.

You can't terreatt the death personalty as an isolyatd moral question.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm sorry, we elected them. You think that if we replaced the pensions, honors, and secret service details with executions, then we'd get better presidents?

No, I think that if someone is given access to information like that and proven that they can't not abuse it in ways ridiculously dangerous to anyone, they are toxic waste in the same vein as WW2 era chemical weapons, and we need to safely destroy it rather than waiting for it to blow up.

I argue this is true of anyone, but especially president.

I expect we would get better presidents if everyone who ever decided to store classified nuclear documents in the basement of an unlocked basement with heavy nearby foot traffic, or to do anything similarly foolish without reporting the orders to authorities for investigation, needs to have their lease on life reevaluated.

I would only design to replace honors with executions when the action in question involves the gross mishandling of nuclear secrets. Maybe then criminals like Mango Mussolini might consider that to be "too hot to handle".

 

[Jarhyn]

Some progressives today argue incarceration is cruel and unusual punishment. The idea being criminals are victims of society.

No, the argument is merely that punishment serves no utility function: It doesn't reduce recidivism, so how do you expect it to reduce recidivism?

Instead, we argue corrections should actually be the things that work. Treating criminals like human beings and rewarding them for good behavior and just not feeding anything to the bad behavior at all works much more effectively.

Likewise teaching them empathy and useful trades works.

Sometimes psychiatric treatment and pills work.

Sometimes just picking up weed works.

Criminals are only the victims of society when we uselessly torture them.

 

[Elixir]

Criminals are only the victims of society when we uselessly torture them.

That would be when we torture them.
Nonetheless, leave me alone in a room with Donald Trump...
(And yes, that very impulse is why we can't have nice things.)

 

[steve_bank]

Some progressives today argue incarceration is cruel and unusual punishment. The idea being criminals are victims of society.

No, the argument is merely that punishment serves no utility function: It doesn't reduce recidivism, so how do you expect it to reduce recidivism?

Instead, we argue corrections should actually be the things that work. Treating criminals like human beings and rewarding them for good behavior and just not feeding anything to the bad behavior at all works much more effectively.

Likewise teaching them empathy and useful trades works.

Sometimes psychiatric treatment and pills work.

Sometimes just picking up weed works.

Criminals are only the victims of society when we uselessly torture them.

Fear works.

In the early 70s when I got out of the militray I started out in rough neigborhoods.

I quickly learned drug dealers and pimps were far more afraid of other criminals than the police. One learned to mind one;s own business.

Please stop the derail to Trump. Take it to [poltics.

 

[Jarhyn]

Criminals are only the victims of society when we uselessly torture them.

That would be when we torture them.
Nonetheless, leave me alone in a room with Donald Trump...

That's the thing.

I wouldn't want to be alone in a room with him. He could say various things that I then would be responsible for not repeating. People would force me to prove my trustworthiness to not repeat what it is uncertain was or was not said.

I would much rather he be held in a soundproof room then be left in there as the air is removed as quickly as possible.

Yes I would enjoy watching it, but that's beside the point.

I would as soon never build such an evil monster in the first place as someone we have vetted that we CANNOT trust who we nonetheless let idiots give such things to because our election laws are fucking  stupid, but here we are with a turd in the toilet and it's stinking up the house, and if we don't do something soon the flies will lay eggs and then we'll have a house full of flies covered in shit.

This isn't about punishment but what to do with solid human waste.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Cops make errors, judges make errors, appeal judges make errors.

An erroneous execution can't be corrected.