The Death Penalty

[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.

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.

Judges already use established sentencing guidelines to try to fit the punishment to the crime. For a legislature to try to establish such guidelines on the basis of how their legislation looks to voters, that is taking the judgment out of the hands of those appointed to do the judging and making the whole process subject to political whims. It is taking a sledgehammer to the legal system, since there are plenty of cases where judges and juries know a lot more about the circumstances of the case than those legislators and voters who try to second guess them from afar.

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.

Incarceration without parole is already an established process within the judicial system. You simply can't have a system of parole without some risk, since nobody can predict the future. Nobody opposes reforming the system to try to make it less likely for people released to re-offend. I don't know what "rehabilitation programs" you are thinking about, but the US does have some of the highest recidivism rates in the world. I suspect that that has something to do with how tough we make it for those released to integrate back into society. As usual, we could probably learn more by studying what other countries do to achieve lower rates, but that would be admitting that other countries sometimes have better solutions than we do.

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.

That, in a nutshell, is why the death penalty so rarely leads to execution and is far more expensive than simply incarceration without parole. If unforced confessions are grounds for not killing the person at the end of a trial, then only the suicidal murderers will end up being killed during incarceration--probably just a small number of those caught and sent to trial.

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.

From my perspective, that would be ideal. I oppose the death penalty for the same reason that people abolished outright torture. I believe that it sends out a signal that murder is justifiable, if done properly. A great many murderers seem to feel that their actions were justified--at least at the time they committed the murder.

 

[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.

You just answered your own question.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

 

[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.

You just answered your own question.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

You argue for expediency? Kill them just to make sure they cause no further harm?

 

[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.

You just answered your own question.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

You argue for expediency? Kill them just to make sure they cause no further harm?

No, I argue for the protection of society from those who are a threat to it.

Or perhaps let all murderers live and release them at some time and see what might happen.

 

[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.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

I suspect it's whom we count as a member of society that is the point of disagreement.

In my philosophy, a person doesn't cease to be a person when they commit a crime.

Protection of society and its members includes, as a subset, the protection of convicted criminals.

People being killed strikes me as a major failure to protect them, even if they fall into the subset of "convicts".

It's more moral to not harm a person yourself, than it is to protect them from being harmed by others. Therefore the death penalty (and corporal punishment, torture, and even imprisonment under poor conditions) represents a greater failing by a government than the existence of crime within that society that they govern (unless, of course, that crime is committed by the government themselves).

People who do horrible things must be prevented from repeating those horrible things. People who contemplate doing horrible things must be dissuaded, as far as possible, from carrying them out.

Killing someone is a horrible thing.

Governments should not kill citizens (including convicts), and should be dissuaded, as far as possible, from planning to do so.

 

[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.

You just answered your own question.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

You argue for expediency? Kill them just to make sure they cause no further harm?

No, I argue for the protection of society from those who are a threat to it.

Or perhaps let all murderers live and release them at some time and see what might happen.

It's the means of protecting the community that you propose that has serious moral implications. As there is no need to kill those who are in custody and no longer pose a risk to the community, killing them regardless is a form of cold blooded murder.

 

[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.

You just answered your own question.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

You argue for expediency? Kill them just to make sure they cause no further harm?

No, I argue for the protection of society from those who are a threat to it.

Or perhaps let all murderers live and release them at some time and see what might happen.

It's the means of protecting the community that you propose that has serious moral implications.

I do not deny the serious moral implications. But that is not the same as ignoring them. Having the possibility of release also has serious moral implications.

As there is no need to kill those who are in custody and no longer pose a risk to the community, killing them regardless is a form of cold blooded murder.

Being in Australia you might be familiar with Julian Knight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Knight_(murderer). He is currently held by special legislative order because he is up for parole but is still a threat to society. He freely confessed to what he did, the physical evidence is overwhelming. He has no remorse for what he did. He is constantly before the courts to be freed.

My (and many others) fear is that some day an "enlightened or progressive" (read blithering idiot) magistrate or judge will order his release as "he has suffered enough".

Without remorse and if there is the possibility of release then they are still a threat to society and its members.

 

[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.

You just answered your own question.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

I suspect it's whom we count as a member of society that is the point of disagreement.

In my philosophy, a person doesn't cease to be a person when they commit a crime.

No disagreement from me. But having committed a crime we treat them differently to other members of society.

Protection of society and its members includes, as a subset, the protection of convicted criminals.

Indeed

People being killed strikes me as a major failure to protect them, even if they fall into the subset of "convicts".

Now we are looking at a possible hierarchy of protection. Whom do we protect first and most? The criminals or their victims and possible future victims?
Call me a radical but I am firmly on the side of the victims and preventing possible future victims.

It's more moral to not harm a person yourself, than it is to protect them from being harmed by others. Therefore the death penalty (and corporal punishment, torture, and even imprisonment under poor conditions) represents a greater failing by a government than the existence of crime within that society that they govern (unless, of course, that crime is committed by the government themselves).

People who do horrible things must be prevented from repeating those horrible things. People who contemplate doing horrible things must be dissuaded, as far as possible, from carrying them out.

There are only 3 options regarding people who do horrible things
1. Life imprisonment - no possibility of parole
2. Capital punishment
3. Limited imprisonment then release - with the possibility of a repeat

Take your pick.

 

[TomC]

There are only 3 options regarding people who do horrible things
1. Life imprisonment - no possibility of parole
2. Capital punishment
3. Limited imprisonment then release - with the possibility of a repeat

Take your pick.

Maybe
"Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)" people
see this differently from nontheist people like me.

We're all God's Children. In my nontheist opinion.

All of us. Even when we've done extremely bad things. So you're gonna have to give me a damn good reason before I'll agree that deliberately killing another Child of God is the best, most moral, Choice.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Whom do we protect first and most? The criminals or their victims and possible future victims?
Call me a radical but I am firmly on the side of the victims and preventing possible future victims.

I don't think you're a radical. I think you're a victim of a false dichotomy.

We can protect both. Nobody needs to be killed by the state for that to occur.

 

[bilby]

There are only 3 options regarding people who do horrible things
1. Life imprisonment - no possibility of parole
2. Capital punishment
3. Limited imprisonment then release - with the possibility of a repeat

Take your pick.

I reject #2 for reasons already given; And I think your take on #3 is assuming your conclusion.

There's always the possibility that someone will kill, or attempt to kill, another person. That's true whether or not they have killed before.

Insofar as your option #3 is a rational approach, it implies that we should lock up everyone, just in case they decide to commit a serious crime.

The likelihood that a person who has killed once will kill again is a spectrum from the violent psychopath who will always someone if the opportunity presents (and such people are highly unlikely ever to be released once caught), to the person whose killing was in a limited or controlled environment (a person who kills her husband who is regularly beating her up is unlikely to repeat the offence if she never remarries; A soldier who kills enemy soldiers under orders and in compliance with the rules of engagement is unlikely to kill unlawfully).

Your assumption that most convicted murderers are at the psychopathic extreme is unwarranted; The VAST majority of murders are one-off events (usually related to settling of scores amongst people unwilling or unable to enlist the assistance of the authorities), and the vast majority of released murderers do not reoffend.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

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.

I think the discussion has to go a couple of levels deeper than that.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would go a long way to reducing all levels of crime. (and some of the mental illness)

Just saying.

 

[TomC]

I think the discussion has to go a couple of levels deeper than that.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would go a long way to reducing all levels of crime. (and some of the mental illness)

Maybe if we all pray hard enough Jesus will heal the people with violent psychosis? Before they commit ugly crimes?


According to the pastor of a local Baptist church, the church's prayer warrior team convinced Jesus to heal his sister's breast cancer. Why don't we ramp this up!

Tom

 

[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.

I think the discussion has to go a couple of levels deeper than that.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would go a long way to reducing all levels of crime. (and some of the mental illness)

Just saying.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would be very nice to have.

 

[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

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.

I think the discussion has to go a couple of levels deeper than that.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would go a long way to reducing all levels of crime. (and some of the mental illness)

Just saying.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would be very nice to have.

I agree.
Too bad there aren't enough Christians who agree to change society. There are, demonstrably, not enough Christians to pull off something like that.

Even Jesus can't manage it.
Demonstrably. Centuries later, it hasn't even come close to happening.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

There's always the possibility that someone will kill, or attempt to kill, another person. That's true whether or not they have killed before.

No argument from me. The issue is not the possibility of whether one may kill another but what to with with killers.

Insofar as your option #3 is a rational approach, it implies that we should lock up everyone, just in case they decide to commit a serious crime.

No it implies that parole should not be automatic for some crimes. Just because someone has served X years does not guarantee release. Yet that happens far too often.

The likelihood that a person who has killed once will kill again is a spectrum from the violent psychopath who will always someone if the opportunity presents (and such people are highly unlikely ever to be released once caught), to the person whose killing was in a limited or controlled environment (a person who kills her husband who is regularly beating her up is unlikely to repeat the offence if she never remarries; A soldier who kills enemy soldiers under orders and in compliance with the rules of engagement is unlikely to kill unlawfully).

Your assumption that most convicted murderers are at the psychopathic extreme is unwarranted; The VAST majority of murders are one-off events (usually related to settling of scores amongst people unwilling or unable to enlist the assistance of the authorities), and the vast majority of released murderers do not reoffend.

So what do we do with the released murders who do reoffend and why were they released in the first place?
It's all good for you to claim that mistakes may happen but there will be more unnecessary grief & suffering.

 

[Tigers!]

I agree.
Too bad there aren't enough Christians who agree to change society. There are, demonstrably, not enough Christians to pull off something like that.

That sadly is very true.

 

[Tigers!]

Whom do we protect first and most? The criminals or their victims and possible future victims?
Call me a radical but I am firmly on the side of the victims and preventing possible future victims.

I don't think you're a radical. I think you're a victim of a false dichotomy.

We can protect both. Nobody needs to be killed by the state for that to occur.

If the state and its organisations were rational and clear thinking that would be true. But the jury is out on that decision.

 

[Tigers!]

Even Jesus can't manage it.
Demonstrably. Centuries later, it hasn't even come close to happening.
Tom

Homo Sapiens is indeed a stupid and wicked species overall.

 

[TomC]

Even Jesus can't manage it.
Demonstrably. Centuries later, it hasn't even come close to happening.
Tom

Homo Sapiens is indeed a stupid and wicked species overall.

Why do you suppose Almighty God insists on making us that way?

My explanation is that there is no God who cares about anything, much less the dumbass life forms on a tiny speck hurtling around an unimportant star on the edge of a galaxy.

That's the foundation of my morality. Nobody cares about any human except for other humans. We must care for each other or else it just won't happen at all.
Tom