The Death Penalty

[DBT]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.

Justifiable self defence is one thing, executing someone who is in custody and poses no further risk to the community is another thing altogether.

 

[Tigers!]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.

Justifiable self defence is one thing, executing someone who is in custody and poses no further risk to the community is another thing altogether.

The claim that they pose no further risk to the community is debatable. Violence and murders occur in prison and being in Australia you would be well aware that there are far too many people who are 'no risk to the community' are released and then go and pose a risk to the community.

 

[bilby]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.

You just answered your own question.

 

[Copernicus]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.

Justifiable self defence is one thing, executing someone who is in custody and poses no further risk to the community is another thing altogether.

The claim that they pose no further risk to the community is debatable. Violence and murders occur in prison and being in Australia you would be well aware that there are far too many people who are 'no risk to the community' are released and then go and pose a risk to the community.

It seems to me that the term "higher standard of morality" invites a debate over standards of morality rather than a secular civil policy of capital punishment per se. A legal code is not quite the same thing as a moral code, although people tend to believe that laws are based on some moral standard. The way US law is supposed to work is that a law ought to address some perceived need that the Constitution grants the government the right to regulate. IOW, there ought to be some civic justification for it. How does the law promote the interests of the public at large?

There is no question that murder is an existential threat to individual citizens, who have a right to life and liberty, so it is illegal. The question at issue is whether capital punishment is the best way to minimize the number of murders committed. So the question can be addressed on empirical grounds. Does capital punishment actually deter murders in comparison to other forums of punishment, for example, incarceration? Ought it to be cruel or unusual punishment, which is constitutionally forbidden? Can it be justified in light of the fact that it is not remediable in cases where the person found guilty is later discovered to be innocent? These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed, not whether the practice is moral.

 

[bilby]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.

Justifiable self defence is one thing, executing someone who is in custody and poses no further risk to the community is another thing altogether.

The claim that they pose no further risk to the community is debatable. Violence and murders occur in prison and being in Australia you would be well aware that there are far too many people who are 'no risk to the community' are released and then go and pose a risk to the community.

It seems to me that the term "higher standard of morality" invites a debate over standards of morality rather than a secular civil policy of capital punishment per se. A legal code is not quite the same thing as a moral code, although people tend to believe that laws are based on some moral standard. The way US law is supposed to work is that a law ought to address some perceived need that the Constitution grants the government the right to regulate. IOW, there ought to be some civic justification for it. How does the law promote the interests of the public at large?

There is no question that murder is an existential threat to individual citizens, who have a right to life and liberty, so it is illegal. The question at issue is whether capital punishment is the best way to minimize the number of murders committed. So the question can be addressed on empirical grounds. Does capital punishment actually deter murders in comparison to other forums of punishment, for example, incarceration? Ought it to be cruel or unusual punishment, which is constitutionally forbidden? Can it be justified in light of the fact that it is not remediable in cases where the person found guilty is later discovered to be innocent? These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed, not whether the practice is moral.

Current US law ought not to be used as a framework for discussion of whether US law is appropriate; That is to say that the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is itself subject to analysis and potentially rejection, as part of a discussion of the morality (or otherwise) of laws and their associated penalties.

Your questions are excellent, but I would add: Should the constitution limit what punishments are available to lawmakers, and if so, what limits should there be?

I personally think that "cruel and unusual" is a dreadfully vague phrase that has no place in law, much less in constitutional law. Certainly a strong argument could be made that almost any penalty is 'cruel'; and 'unusual' is apparently just eliminating the possibility of change, without regard for the consequences of that change.

Perhaps the meaning of the phrase was more specific, and well understood to be so, for the people of the USA at the time that the Constitution was written; But it certainly isn't a helpful phrase today.

Horse: Everyone can see what a horse is.

 

[TomC]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.

The generic term I use is "Pro-life".
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

...

It seems to me that the term "higher standard of morality" invites a debate over standards of morality rather than a secular civil policy of capital punishment per se. A legal code is not quite the same thing as a moral code, although people tend to believe that laws are based on some moral standard. The way US law is supposed to work is that a law ought to address some perceived need that the Constitution grants the government the right to regulate. IOW, there ought to be some civic justification for it. How does the law promote the interests of the public at large?

There is no question that murder is an existential threat to individual citizens, who have a right to life and liberty, so it is illegal. The question at issue is whether capital punishment is the best way to minimize the number of murders committed. So the question can be addressed on empirical grounds. Does capital punishment actually deter murders in comparison to other forums of punishment, for example, incarceration? Ought it to be cruel or unusual punishment, which is constitutionally forbidden? Can it be justified in light of the fact that it is not remediable in cases where the person found guilty is later discovered to be innocent? These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed, not whether the practice is moral.

Current US law ought not to be used as a framework for discussion of whether US law is appropriate; That is to say that the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is itself subject to analysis and potentially rejection, as part of a discussion of the morality (or otherwise) of laws and their associated penalties.

Your questions are excellent, but I would add: Should the constitution limit what punishments are available to lawmakers, and if so, what limits should there be?

I suppose the problem is with the way the thread topic frames the question. Morality is about what is right or wrong human conduct, and there is a lot of philosophical debate over what that could mean. Consequentialism, a form of utilitarianism, seems to be the basis for a moral standard in modern secular terms. But penalties for moral transgressions are a different kind of issue altogether, because penalties tend to be thought of in terms of government regulations. Since a constitution necessarily spells out the powers of government, penalties are subject to how it defines those powers. That's why I raised it here. One could, of course, argue back and forth over whether revenge killings ought to be in some form codified legally. That is what I think capital punishment is--a legal form of revenge killing. However, I know that a lot of people object to framing it as merely revenge killing.

I personally think that "cruel and unusual" is a dreadfully vague phrase that has no place in law, much less in constitutional law. Certainly a strong argument could be made that almost any penalty is 'cruel'; and 'unusual' is apparently just eliminating the possibility of change, without regard for the consequences of that change.

Perhaps the meaning of the phrase was more specific, and well understood to be so, for the people of the USA at the time that the Constitution was written; But it certainly isn't a helpful phrase today.

Horse: Everyone can see what a horse is.

Well, the vagueness was intentional, because standards of norms and cruelty differ over time. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret laws not just in terms of historical norms, but also in terms of how those norms conform to modern times. I don't want to get into a debate over so-called Constitutional originialism, but I don't think that people who advocate for it understand the spirit in which the Constitution was drafted, nor do I think it practical or possible to interpret laws in the way that framers and ratifiers of the Constitution did. That's a topic for a different thread, I think.

 

[Tigers!]

There is no question that murder is an existential threat to individual citizens, who have a right to life and liberty, so it is illegal.

The question at issue is whether capital punishment is the best way to minimize the number of murders committed.

That is not the only question but we can address it.

So the question can be addressed on empirical grounds. Does capital punishment actually deter murders in comparison to other forums of punishment, for example, incarceration?

We can set up am empirical experiment to determine whether incarceration or capital punishment works in deterring murder? In Australia the last capital punishment was 03/02/1967. We now rely on incarceration. But murders are still being committed so incarceration is not a deterrence. We could try capital punishment again but that will not stop murders.
So the question is should we be so concerned about deterrence? Is that the only reason for a 'justice' system?

Ought it to be cruel or unusual punishment, which is constitutionally forbidden?

Always depends upon who you ask what is cruel or unusual punishment.

Can it be justified in light of the fact that it is not remediable in cases where the person found guilty is later discovered to be innocent? These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed, not whether the practice is moral.

The situation is also non-remedial where a guilty party is released and then commits again. We rarely discuss that though.

 

[Copernicus]

...

The question at issue is whether capital punishment is the best way to minimize the number of murders committed.

That is not the only question but we can address it.

OK, but you did not do that in your last post. Instead, you addressed the question of whether capital punishment and incarceration could be expected to end all murders in Australia, pointed out that neither ended all murders in Australia, and somehow arrived at the conclusion that you were addressing something I asked in my post, which I did not. Here, see for yourself:

So the question can be addressed on empirical grounds. Does capital punishment actually deter murders in comparison to other forums of punishment, for example, incarceration?

We can set up am empirical experiment to determine whether incarceration or capital punishment works in deterring murder? In Australia the last capital punishment was 03/02/1967. We now rely on incarceration. But murders are still being committed so incarceration is not a deterrence. We could try capital punishment again but that will not stop murders.
So the question is should we be so concerned about deterrence? Is that the only reason for a 'justice' system?

I asked for a comparison, so a valid response would be for you to provide a comparison of murder rates before and after capital punishment was replaced by incarceration, i.e. 03/02/1967. I asked for a comparison. Your last two questions get us back into territory we've already discussed in the past: Should revenge be a criterion on which to base a legal punishment? What is justice, and is revenge part of it? We could go on for weeks disagreeing on that one. Been there. Done that.

Ought it to be cruel or unusual punishment, which is constitutionally forbidden?

Always depends upon who you ask what is cruel or unusual punishment.

That's right, and that's why our Constitution assigns that role to the courts.

Can it be justified in light of the fact that it is not remediable in cases where the person found guilty is later discovered to be innocent? These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed, not whether the practice is moral.

The situation is also non-remedial where a guilty party is released and then commits again. We rarely discuss that though.

No, we discuss it all the time. You and others bring it up all the time. That's one of the most common arguments for having a death penalty--to stop the miscreants from being released by liberal, leftist, "woke" judges and parole boards.

 

[TomC]

The situation is also non-remedial where a guilty party is released and then commits again. We rarely discuss that though.

We discuss this a great deal.
Efforts to improve prison conditions to help rehabilitation and reduce recidivism get dismissed as "coddling criminals".
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

It has happened several time in recent times in Seattle.

In one case a social justice .org posted bail for a violent felon who went out and murdered.

The thought of a murderer getting our on parole is intense long lasting pain and anxiety for family and friends of the murdered.

From what I have seen in Seattle for tye last 10 years rehabilitation of a murderer is a rare exception. They are seen in the news once in a while telling their story, but it is an exception.

Yesterday in Seattle 3 teens 11-15 punched a woman in the face trying to get her fanny pack, tried to rob somebody at gunpoint, and took a walet from a third viction.

What If they had shot and killed somebody?

I'd say the growing vionce teen to young adults will swamp rehabilitation efforts.

 

[bilby]

In one case a social justice .org posted bail for a violent felon who went out and murdered.

Oh no!

One whole case!?

It's a disaster!!!

 

[TomC]

In one case a social justice .org posted bail for a violent felon who went out and murdered.

Oh no!

One whole case!?

It's a disaster!!!

Well, you do live in a place where summer is colder than winter. So I won't be too judgemental, it's not your fault you poor Australian thing you.

But this happens a lot here. SJWs pop for bail or lawyers or something. Then the perp goes and commits another violent crime or two.

Or three.

It does happen. It's not "one whole case".
Tom

 

[DBT]

So, is it the solution to execute prisoners in case they reoffend if released, or be very careful about who to release? Perhaps there are some who should never be released.

 

[bilby]

So, is it the solution to execute prisoners in case they reoffend if released, or be very careful about who to release? Perhaps there are some who should never be released.

There are plenty who should never be released. But they likely belong in secure psychiatric care, rather than in prison.

 

[southernhybrid]

So, is it the solution to execute prisoners in case they reoffend if released, or be very careful about who to release? Perhaps there are some who should never be released.

The most violent criminals usually get life in prison without the possibility of parole. Some who are released are very old. I had a home health patient once who fit that category. He was dying, and was released from prison. His neighbors helped care for him until he died. A lot of these criminals commit violent crimes when they are very young. Once they reach middle age, most, not all, but most, are no longer dangerous. Some prisons have areas that are like nursing homes. Why not release these people to nursing homes that take M'caid, or to their families if they have someone willing to care for them?

Most of our prisons are disgusting hell holes. I've been reading a lot about them. It's not necessarily private prisons. It's almost all prisons. They are under staffed and the prisoners are treated very inhumanely. It makes us seem no better than the prisoners, sometimes worse. Sometimes prisons influence non violent criminals to become violent. We drastically need prison reform.

I know this thread isn't about prison reform, but that's a topic we should discuss sometime. Since most of our large mental health institutions were closed down in the late 80s and 90s, there really isn't an alternative for the criminally insane, other than prison.

Then again, some of the remaining mental institutions are disgusting hell holes too. The AJC did an investigation a few years ago about one that was still open in central Georgia. It was so poorly staffed, that people were dying from constipation from bowel obstructions. I'm off topic, but imo, all of this is related.

I've already said earlier in this thread that I don't support the death penalty for a variety of reasons.

 

[Copernicus]

So, is it the solution to execute prisoners in case they reoffend if released, or be very careful about who to release? Perhaps there are some who should never be released.

The most violent criminals usually get life in prison without the possibility of parole. Some who are released are very old. I had a home health patient once who fit that category. He was dying, and was released from prison. His neighbors helped care for him until he died. A lot of these criminals commit violent crimes when they are very young. Once they reach middle age, most, not all, but most, are no longer dangerous. Some prisons have areas that are like nursing homes. Why not release these people to nursing homes that take M'caid, or to their families if they have someone willing to care for them?

Most of our prisons are disgusting hell holes. I've been reading a lot about them. It's not necessarily private prisons. It's almost all prisons. They are under staffed and the prisoners are treated very inhumanely. It makes us seem no better than the prisoners, sometimes worse. Sometimes prisons influence non violent criminals to become violent. We drastically need prison reform.

I know this thread isn't about prison reform, but that's a topic we should discuss sometime. Since most of our large mental health institutions were closed down in the late 80s and 90s, there really isn't an alternative for the criminally insane, other than prison.

Then again, some of the remaining mental institutions are disgusting hell holes too. The AJC did an investigation a few years ago about one that was still open in central Georgia. It was so poorly staffed, that people were dying from constipation from bowel obstructions. I'm off topic, but imo, all of this is related.

I've already said earlier in this thread that I don't support the death penalty for a variety of reasons.

Not off topic. We are discussing the death penalty, so it is appropriate to talk about alternative penalties and their consequences by way of comparison. A point raised above, but not fully addressed is the problem that some murderers are released and then commit more murders and violence. They are still a danger to society. The question that needs to be addressed in that case is whether killing them while in custody, including possibly innocent people wrongly convicted and people who longer pose a realistic threat, is the best solution to the risk of early release of those who will reoffend. Is life without the possibility of parole a better or worse idea than just killing them while we have incarcerated them? Killing them would certainly reduce the number of those getting out and committing more murders. The others could just be written off as collateral damage.

 

[Tigers!]

The situation is also non-remedial where a guilty party is released and then commits again. We rarely discuss that though.

We discuss this a great deal.
Efforts to improve prison conditions to help rehabilitation and reduce recidivism get dismissed as "coddling criminals".
Tom

Oh we discuss rehabilitation an awful lot.
What we don't discuss is why are those who are not rehabilitatied released? And if they re-offend what do we do with them then? That is rarely discussed. And the existence of a another set of victim(s) and their family/friends is not discussed at all.

 

[Copernicus]

The situation is also non-remedial where a guilty party is released and then commits again. We rarely discuss that though.

We discuss this a great deal.
Efforts to improve prison conditions to help rehabilitation and reduce recidivism get dismissed as "coddling criminals".
Tom

Oh we discuss rehabilitation an awful lot.
What we don't discuss is why are those who are not rehabilitatied released? And if they re-offend what do we do with them then? That is rarely discussed. And the existence of a another set of victim(s) and their family/friends is not discussed at all.

Even less discussed is what people who complain about recidivism think would remedy the problem. We already have legislatures that try to second guess judges who hand out sentences. Is it your opinion that we abolish parole altogether? What reforms do you think necessary? Of course, we could just try to kill everyone convicted of murder, but the process of actually meting out a death sentence tends to be extremely time-consuming and expensive, given all of the appeals processes and special provisions for death row inmates. Actual executions tend to be very rare, take a long time, and often get botched in a way that brings extreme suffering to the victim. But I suppose that suffering is part of the solution that advocates for the death penalty think would help to deter more people from committing capital offenses.

 

[Tigers!]

The situation is also non-remedial where a guilty party is released and then commits again. We rarely discuss that though.

We discuss this a great deal.
Efforts to improve prison conditions to help rehabilitation and reduce recidivism get dismissed as "coddling criminals".
Tom

Oh we discuss rehabilitation an awful lot.
What we don't discuss is why are those who are not rehabilitatied released? And if they re-offend what do we do with them then? That is rarely discussed. And the existence of a another set of victim(s) and their family/friends is not discussed at all.

Even less discussed is what people who complain about recidivism think would remedy the problem. We already have legislatures that try to second guess judges who hand out sentences.

That is why we keep polies out of the process of individual cases. But the broad policy outlines need some legislative input and since the pollies represent us and are part of society they do need some input.

Is it your opinion that we abolish parole altogether?

For some crimes that is a possibility - murder, child abuse, rape spring to mind. It is a great risk to release those who should not be. Safer fro the community for that risk to be eliminated if possible. I wonder how many of these rehabilitation programs actually work? Attending X numbers of classes over N weeks/years is not a guaranteed way to ensure rehabilitation. It will ensure a box is ticked but that may be all.

What reforms do you think necessary? Of course, we could just try to kill everyone convicted of murder, but the process of actually meting out a death sentence tends to be extremely time-consuming and expensive, given all of the appeals processes and special provisions for death row inmates.

The process itself can be tortuous i agree.
Concerning murder, rape etc. - if there is a free, unforced confession. physical evidence etc. then it makes it easier to justify an execution.

Actual executions tend to be very rare, take a long time, and often get botched in a way that brings extreme suffering to the victim. But I suppose that suffering is part of the solution that advocates for the death penalty think would help to deter more people from committing capital offenses.

If you make the process such that it is impossible to execute someone then it is no surprise that no-one is executed.