Time To Get Rid Of The Death Penalty, Worldwide

[PyramidHead]

The problem is the maximum security involved. I prefer making it much nicer than maximum security implies, letting them live without physical walls, and when they leave except through the front door with a bill of clean enough mental health and life skills to do a job, gun them down. We don't have time to incarcerate people, nor should we force them to suffer.

I count myself lucky that no-one in a position to make changes to the way I live has any interest in what you prefer.

 

[credoconsolans]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed. Is there any?

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

That "small increase in security" isn't so small when you're talking about your security.

 

[Togo]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed.

No, it isn't. The correlation is between the reoffending rate of those arrested for crime in areas where the death penalty is applied for that crime, compared with areas that aren't. Death penalty districts have a higher reoffending rate, because their prosecution rate is so much lower. That's a much stronger effect than whether, after 10-15 years of incarceration, a convict is killed or stays in jail, which is the only practical difference between imprisonment and the death penalty.

 

[Unbeatable]

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

That "small increase in security" isn't so small when you're talking about your security.

No, it's always the same size. All that's changed is that you've lost perspective.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed. Is there any?

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

That "small increase in security" isn't so small when you're talking about your security.

When you make that calculation, do you include the possibility that you will be wrongly convicted and executed?

 

[DBT]

Just my opinion but;

I think that there are crimes for which the death penalty is appropriate. .

What makes it appropriate?

 

[Earl IV]

Probably should focus more attention on the 10s of thousands of innocent people who die every day from preventable disease and starvation than the few hundred per year being put to death for deeds they most likely committed.

Just sayin'

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Just my opinion but;

I think that there are crimes for which the death penalty is appropriate. That said, if there is any evidence that any innocent person has been mistakenly put to death (and I understand there is) then I don't think I understand how anyone can, in good conscience, support the death penalty.

Of course, we imprison our citizens at a horrifying rate as well.

I think that there are crimes for which the death penalty is [strikeout]appropriate[/strikeout] awfully tempting. For my fallible, emotional, animal self. This is part of why the State assumes the onus of legislating punishments, so that individuals don't get involved in vendettas or do things they will likely regret. We raise our children in the knowledge there is a rule of law which we should rely on and that, by itself, acts as a deterrent to some revenge crimes.

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

Not necessarily. This assumes a thing on the pro-death side of things, namely that we actually think that punishment is a deterrent.

I do not think deterrence is a useful model or assumption. For rational people who support the death penelty, there is calculus that goes on. Namely, when you have isolated a persistant problem, the answer is to reshape it until it is either not persistant in trying to be where it is problematic, or so that it is no longer problematic when it gets there. If neither goal can be accomplished, you dispose of the problem instead. It has nothing to do with such silly things as 'fear' or 'deterrence', and everything to do with wanting to correct a known problem when it is identified.

But now you have created another problem which has far reaching, and worse, ramifications. You have legislated that human lives are not to be cherished and preserved by all means possible, but instead are to be subject to calculation and convenience.

It isn't even about the criminal's right to live, it is about the right that the rest of us have to prevent the taking of life in our collective name. It's about what we consider to be ideal, about what we aim for.

Our readiness to take lives, as a community, defines us.

 

[PyramidHead]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed. Is there any?

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

That "small increase in security" isn't so small when you're talking about your security.

Oooh, now you've gone and scared me. I am therefore persuaded to completely reverse my position, for 100% rational reasons.

 

[Sabine Grant]

So incredibly wrong, Sabine. Life in prison has varied lengths. I've read of some where the 'life in prison' sentence gave the prisoner a chance for parole in 7 years. And he got it.

I'm sure you've read of plenty of examples when states outlawed the death penalty and commuted their sentences to life, then failed to change the procedurals and heinous criminals who were never supposed to see the light of day again, actually got paroled.

And killed again.

the threat of imminent death or harm on society has been now removed permanently.Somehow I cannot fathom finding myself in a dark alley while facing an imminent threat of death or harm from Charles Manson still currently incarcerated at the Corcoran California State Prison.

But you might have met up with Kenneth McDuff. Some young women did back in the mid 1990s. I can't imagine how they could have considering...

McDuff received three death sentences [for the murders]. While incarcerated, McDuff was twice sent to the electric chair, but both times received last minute stays of execution.However, McDuff's death sentences were commuted to a life sentence. At that time, a life sentence in Texas meant serving a minimum of 10 years in prison before being paroled.

And he was paroled because the prisons were overcrowded.

So a few years after his heinous crimes, he was released. And tortured, raped and murdered a half dozen or so more young women before he was caught again and this time, rightfully executed.

The issue is then with fixing the system so such failures do not occur any longer. Rather than arguing that because there has been isolated cases of such failures it justifies the death penalty.

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

Their 'isolation' is relative.

It is not "relative" that convicted criminals sentenced to life are isolated from general society. They are physically removed from interaction with general society. I am rather certain that it is what DBT meant.

What about the guards? They're still at risk.

As if Staff on inmates violence and sexual abuse does not present a risk for convicted criminals. It appears that your sole argumentation here to support your self defense justification is....about guards. I hope you have come to the reality connected conclusion by now that society as a whole is certainly not facing an imminent threat of death or harm from an individual incarcerated for life.

The guards are most certainly part of our society. They have families, wives, kids and parents. I can't believe you want to divorce them from our society.

I am not "divorcing them from society". But at this point, in order to pursue your pro death penalty argumentation, it really comes down to terminating those convicted criminals because you envision prison Staff as perpetually facing an imminent threat of death or severe harm, thus justifying your claim of the death penalty being rooted in the principle of self defense.

Further, the death penalty is directly connected to the principles of the lex talionis which in no way relies on any notion of self defense rather "you take a life, we take yours".

[shrug] So you say. I don't agree.

They can't be isolated unless they have no guards. Then they're isolated. Please give us a way to do that.

"but...but .. what about the guards" is your outcry to justify your misguided thinking that a retributive justice system founded on the lex talionis is about protecting prison Staff? The point DBT made is that incarcerated for life inmates are indeed isolated from general society. They cannot present any longer a threat of imminent death or harm to society in general. Claiming that society is then exercising self defense by terminating their lives makes no sense at all.

Here you go again, assuming a relationship between the death penalty and lex talionis that I don't agree with and trying to basically say that the guards don't count.

You do not agree with what specifically? Maybe from the sources below, can you point what it is you do not agree with as they all confirm that there is a direct relationship between the lex talionis and retributive justice :

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lex_talionis

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581485/talion

And in case you have any doubts that the US Justice system is a retributive justice system.

http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/alst...class_papers/The_Criminal_Justice_Dilemma.pdf

Is it possible you believe that self defense and retribution are synonymous?

Yeah, they do, Sabine.

I am fully aware that prison Staff are human beings with families. What I contest here is your attempting to justify the death penalty while claiming it to be a matter of self defense with the added spice of your dismissing the demonstrated and documented reality that retribution and self defense are vastly different concepts.

Do you think that a prison Staff killing or harming an inmate without any cause of self defense would not get into any trouble? Even in the penitentiary system, there are laws meant to protect inmates from abuse by prison Staff :

http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/sexualabusecasescaselawsurvey.pdf

http://www.wral.com/us-judge-hears-central-prison-inmates-abuse-claims/12807937/

 

[credoconsolans]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed. Is there any?

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

That "small increase in security" isn't so small when you're talking about your security.

When you make that calculation, do you include the possibility that you will be wrongly convicted and executed?

Not any more so then the calculation that I will be arrested and convicted of any crime and spend time behind bars.

- - - Updated - - -

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

That "small increase in security" isn't so small when you're talking about your security.

No, it's always the same size. All that's changed is that you've lost perspective.

Actually no, I have a great perspective. My best friend's sister is married to a penal system security officer. So I have a really good perspective on what is at stake.

Do you?

- - - Updated - - -

Our readiness to take lives, as a community, defines us.

Our readiness to treat the taking of an innocent life by a heinous murderer as no different from someone stealing your car, defines our community and what we think about heinous crimes.

 

[credoconsolans]

So incredibly wrong, Sabine. Life in prison has varied lengths. I've read of some where the 'life in prison' sentence gave the prisoner a chance for parole in 7 years. And he got it.

I'm sure you've read of plenty of examples when states outlawed the death penalty and commuted their sentences to life, then failed to change the procedurals and heinous criminals who were never supposed to see the light of day again, actually got paroled.

And killed again.

the threat of imminent death or harm on society has been now removed permanently.Somehow I cannot fathom finding myself in a dark alley while facing an imminent threat of death or harm from Charles Manson still currently incarcerated at the Corcoran California State Prison.

But you might have met up with Kenneth McDuff. Some young women did back in the mid 1990s. I can't imagine how they could have considering...

McDuff received three death sentences [for the murders]. While incarcerated, McDuff was twice sent to the electric chair, but both times received last minute stays of execution.However, McDuff's death sentences were commuted to a life sentence. At that time, a life sentence in Texas meant serving a minimum of 10 years in prison before being paroled.

And he was paroled because the prisons were overcrowded.

So a few years after his heinous crimes, he was released. And tortured, raped and murdered a half dozen or so more young women before he was caught again and this time, rightfully executed.

The issue is then with fixing the system so such failures do not occur any longer. Rather than arguing that because there has been isolated cases of such failures it justifies the death penalty.

So you then agree that this man was not harmless and was never going to be harmless and keeping him in the penal system did not guarantee his harmlessness?

Good luck 'fixing the system'. There will always be such bureaucratic errors in paperwork.

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

How is it a double standard?

Are our laws really exercises in ethics or keeping society in check?

You don't kill anyone, nothing will happen to you.

You kill someone, you should be treated like the aberration that you are.

You seem to be saying that because murdering people is illegal no one can ever be killed for any reason because the people will be like children and will become confused because we can't tell one from another.

Uh, no.

Their 'isolation' is relative.

It is not "relative" that convicted criminals sentenced to life are isolated from general society. They are physically removed from interaction with general society. I am rather certain that it is what DBT meant.

Possibly, but DBT is mistaken.

What about the guards? They're still at risk.

As if Staff on inmates violence and sexual abuse does not present a risk for convicted criminals. It appears that your sole argumentation here to support your self defense justification is....about guards. I hope you have come to the reality connected conclusion by now that society as a whole is certainly not facing an imminent threat of death or harm from an individual incarcerated for life.

There you go again, appealing to the majority to try to show that the lives of a few guards doesn't matter. C'mon Sabine, you're trying to argue that the lives of few heinous murderers matter, why are you so quick to dismiss the danger to the lives of the guards?

Here you go again, assuming a relationship between the death penalty and lex talionis that I don't agree with and trying to basically say that the guards don't count.

You do not agree with what specifically? Maybe from the sources below, can you point what it is you do not agree with as they all confirm that there is a direct relationship between the lex talionis and retributive justice :

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lex_talionis

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581485/talion

And in case you have any doubts that the US Justice system is a retributive justice system.

http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/alst...class_papers/The_Criminal_Justice_Dilemma.pdf

Is it possible you believe that self defense and retribution are synonymous?

Depends on how you look at it, isn't it? I'm not taking revenge on them at all. I'm just wanting them taken out of the population so that they never hurt anyone ever again.

Do you consider that retribution? I don't.

Do you think that a prison Staff killing or harming an inmate without any cause of self defense would not get into any trouble? Even in the penitentiary system, there are laws meant to protect inmates from abuse by prison Staff :

http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/sexualabusecasescaselawsurvey.pdf

http://www.wral.com/us-judge-hears-central-prison-inmates-abuse-claims/12807937/

Sure there are laws. So? Execution is not the same thing as capping some guy in the bathroom.

 

[DBT]

Our readiness to treat the taking of an innocent life by a heinous murderer as no different from someone stealing your car, defines our community and what we think about heinous crimes.

No, not the same at all. The more serious the crime, the longer the prison time. Those that have no hope of being rehabilitated should never be released. That does not mean that we should torture or execute those who are sociopaths, killers, rapists, but are no longer a threat to society. They are the mental fuck ups of our society, but we have them in custody and they can no longer cause harm to innocent people.

 

[Unbeatable]

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

That "small increase in security" isn't so small when you're talking about your security.

No, it's always the same size. All that's changed is that you've lost perspective.

Actually no, I have a great perspective. My best friend's sister is married to a penal system security officer. So I have a really good perspective on what is at stake. Do you?

Yes, but to be clear, it seems that you and I disagree about what it means for a perspective to be good. You seem to think that admitting your personal stake in the situation is actually a point in your favor, while to me it just confirms that you're not someone whose suggestions on this matter can be trusted, because you're biased in favor of one of the parties involved. You're spending an inordinate proportion of time considering their interests instead of balancing them against others. I believe that relative to the context under discussion(society-level decision-making with far-reaching consequences with regards to the interests of numerous parties), a biased perspective is bad, and an impartial perspective is good.

Prior to this post, it seemed to me that you were probably just another retributionist using emotional appeals as a rhetorical strategy. Now that I see that you're actually just lobbying for the interests of a particular side, there's nothing to be said other than that neither I nor the system have any good reason to care as much about your lobby as you do. The life of your best friend's sister's husband may be important to you, and I won't blame you for that, but why should it be as important to the rest of us? Why shouldn't we consider the aforementioned increase in security small when viewed from the proper perspective?

 

[Sabine Grant]

So incredibly wrong, Sabine. Life in prison has varied lengths. I've read of some where the 'life in prison' sentence gave the prisoner a chance for parole in 7 years. And he got it.

I'm sure you've read of plenty of examples when states outlawed the death penalty and commuted their sentences to life, then failed to change the procedurals and heinous criminals who were never supposed to see the light of day again, actually got paroled.

And killed again.

the threat of imminent death or harm on society has been now removed permanently.Somehow I cannot fathom finding myself in a dark alley while facing an imminent threat of death or harm from Charles Manson still currently incarcerated at the Corcoran California State Prison.

But you might have met up with Kenneth McDuff. Some young women did back in the mid 1990s. I can't imagine how they could have considering...

McDuff received three death sentences [for the murders]. While incarcerated, McDuff was twice sent to the electric chair, but both times received last minute stays of execution.However, McDuff's death sentences were commuted to a life sentence. At that time, a life sentence in Texas meant serving a minimum of 10 years in prison before being paroled.

And he was paroled because the prisons were overcrowded.

So a few years after his heinous crimes, he was released. And tortured, raped and murdered a half dozen or so more young women before he was caught again and this time, rightfully executed.

The issue is then with fixing the system so such failures do not occur any longer. Rather than arguing that because there has been isolated cases of such failures it justifies the death penalty.

So you then agree that this man was not harmless and was never going to be harmless and keeping him in the penal system did not guarantee his harmlessness?

But he was not kept in the penal system and that because of a failure in the system. I am not sure such situation ought to mean that the death penalty is justified for all convicted criminals whose crime level meets a life sentence.

Good luck 'fixing the system'. There will always be such bureaucratic errors in paperwork.

But what you are advocating is to fix isolated failures in the system by resorting to an extreme measure affecting all convicted criminals whose degree of crime meets a life sentence. And again, you advocate such measure based on you believing that the motivation behind the death penalty is about self defense. When at this point, I have documented the reality that the death penalty is the product of a retributive justice rooted from the lex talioanis which has NOTHING to do with self defense.

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

How is it a double standard?

Are our laws really exercises in ethics or keeping society in check?

You don't kill anyone, nothing will happen to you.

You kill someone, you should be treated like the aberration that you are.

Oh....it appears that now you have switched from claiming that the death penalty is about self defense to retribution. " you should be treated like the aberration you are". So, indeed it is about ridding society "off its bad members" while "the state tells the general population it is wrong to kill for any other reason than self defense". You really cannot see how it is a double standard? You attempted to build the case that society applies the death penalty with the self defense motivation. Your case failed because the death penalty is motivated by a retributive justice system rooted in the lex talionis.

Indeed, laws enforce the idea that no killing is justified unless proven to be for self defense. But you support a law (death penalty) which institutionalizes killing without the motive of self defense. It is indeed pure retribution and nothing else. By doing so the state sends the message that it is justified to kill based on retribution. Yet the same state will penalize individuals who will kill motivated by retribution.

You seem to be saying that because murdering people is illegal no one can ever be killed for any reason because the people will be like children and will become confused because we can't tell one from another.

Uh, no.

Not at all. What I am saying is that there is an established and accepted double standard which DBT pointed to.

Their 'isolation' is relative.

It is not "relative" that convicted criminals sentenced to life are isolated from general society. They are physically removed from interaction with general society. I am rather certain that it is what DBT meant.

Possibly, but DBT is mistaken.

How can he be "mistaken" that incarcerated convicted criminals sentenced to life are physically removed from interaction with general society? Or are you dwelling on the rare isolated cases of failures in the system where such criminal is released due to screwed up parole?

What about the guards? They're still at risk.

As if Staff on inmates violence and sexual abuse does not present a risk for convicted criminals. It appears that your sole argumentation here to support your self defense justification is....about guards. I hope you have come to the reality connected conclusion by now that society as a whole is certainly not facing an imminent threat of death or harm from an individual incarcerated for life.

There you go again, appealing to the majority to try to show that the lives of a few guards doesn't matter. C'mon Sabine, you're trying to argue that the lives of few heinous murderers matter, why are you so quick to dismiss the danger to the lives of the guards?

I am not dismissing the reality that inmates flagged for their potential for violence are a risk to prison Staff. However I am also not dismissing the reality that they are in shackles and chains, a measure taken to keep them in restraints to prevent them from attacking anyone. You seem to be envisioning prison Staff as personnel maintained in a position of vulnerability. If they were (which is not the case), I could see how someone would keep harping about justifying the death penalty based on the risk to prison Staff's lives. And if you are tempted to reply with documented cases of Prison Staff having been attacked or killed despite of all those precautions, beware that I will present documented cases of prison Staff sexually abusing inmates and engaging in abuse of force victimizing inmates. That to demonstrate that any argumentation based on a vulnerability factor affecting prison Staff will point to the reality that individuals placed in restraints are susceptible to be more vulnerable to attacks and abuse than individuals who are not placed in restraints.

Here you go again, assuming a relationship between the death penalty and lex talionis that I don't agree with and trying to basically say that the guards don't count.

You do not agree with what specifically? Maybe from the sources below, can you point what it is you do not agree with as they all confirm that there is a direct relationship between the lex talionis and retributive justice :

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lex_talionis

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581485/talion

And in case you have any doubts that the US Justice system is a retributive justice system.

http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/alst...class_papers/The_Criminal_Justice_Dilemma.pdf

Is it possible you believe that self defense and retribution are synonymous?

Depends on how you look at it, isn't it? I'm not taking revenge on them at all. I'm just wanting them taken out of the population so that they never hurt anyone ever again.

So why are you advocating the death penalty when a life sentence without parole would meet the goal of them being "taken out of the population so that they never hurt anyone ever again". Or are you still dwelling on justifying the death penalty based on isolated occurrences of Prison staff being harmed by an inmate?

Do you consider that retribution? I don't.

To my knowledge you are not the author of the Hammurabi Code of Laws where the clear intent is a set laws founded in the concept of retribution. From which branches off every retributive justice system. The death penalty being a product of such concept. Not a concept based on self defense. The concept being illustrated in Judeo Christianity by " an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". When you stated earlier "You kill someone, you should be treated like the aberration that you are", are you telling me that it does not have the element of retribution? If that is the case I will suggest you reword your sentiment.

Do you think that a prison Staff killing or harming an inmate without any cause of self defense would not get into any trouble? Even in the penitentiary system, there are laws meant to protect inmates from abuse by prison Staff :

http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/sexualabusecasescaselawsurvey.pdf

http://www.wral.com/us-judge-hears-central-prison-inmates-abuse-claims/12807937/

Sure there are laws. So? Execution is not the same thing as capping some guy in the bathroom.

My point being that even within the penitentiary system itself, prison Staff are held to the same expectation society in general is , governed and enforced by the state, that the only justification to harm or kill an inmate is for self defense.

 

[credoconsolans]

Our readiness to treat the taking of an innocent life by a heinous murderer as no different from someone stealing your car, defines our community and what we think about heinous crimes.

No, not the same at all. The more serious the crime, the longer the prison time. Those that have no hope of being rehabilitated should never be released. That does not mean that we should torture or execute those who are sociopaths, killers, rapists, but are no longer a threat to society. They are the mental fuck ups of our society, but we have them in custody and they can no longer cause harm to innocent people.

That would be nice if that actually happened. As has been pointed out, the jail terms for murderers vary widely. A guy writing a hot check could in some states once upon a time, have run afoul of the "three strikes and your out" law, and be sentenced to life, while a first time murderer got out on good behavior after 7 years.

 

[credoconsolans]

Actually no, I have a great perspective. My best friend's sister is married to a penal system security officer. So I have a really good perspective on what is at stake. Do you?

Yes, but to be clear, it seems that you and I disagree about what it means for a perspective to be good. You seem to think that admitting your personal stake in the situation is actually a point in your favor, while to me it just confirms that you're not someone whose suggestions on this matter can be trusted

Oh, because I actually deal in the reality of the situation, then I can't be trusted to know what's at stake.

 

[credoconsolans]

So you then agree that this man was not harmless and was never going to be harmless and keeping him in the penal system did not guarantee his harmlessness?

But he was not kept in the penal system and that because of a failure in the system. I am not sure such situation ought to mean that the death penalty is justified for all convicted criminals whose crime level meets a life sentence.

Not all criminals who get a life sentence are heinous criminals.

Good luck 'fixing the system'. There will always be such bureaucratic errors in paperwork.

But what you are advocating is to fix isolated failures in the system by resorting to an extreme measure affecting all convicted criminals whose degree of crime meets a life sentence.

I didn't say "all" criminals, Sabine. That's you putting words in my mouth.

And again, you advocate such measure based on you believing that the motivation behind the death penalty is about self defense. When at this point, I have documented the reality that the death penalty is the product of a retributive justice rooted from the lex talioanis which has NOTHING to do with self defense.

Whose reality? Not mine.

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

How is it a double standard?

Are our laws really exercises in ethics or keeping society in check?

You don't kill anyone, nothing will happen to you.

You kill someone, you should be treated like the aberration that you are.

Oh....it appears that now you have switched from claiming that the death penalty is about self defense to retribution. "

No, Sabine that was you who brought up retribution. Here is your quote:

You do not agree with what specifically? Maybe from the sources below, can you point what it is you do not agree with as they all confirm that there is a direct relationship between the lex talionis and retributive justice :

I was merely responding to your post.

So, indeed it is about ridding society "off its bad members"

What did you think execution accomplished, Sabine?

Self-defense accomplishes what it accomplishes.

while "the state tells the general population it is wrong to kill for any other reason than self defense". You really cannot see how it is a double standard?

Nope. So are you saying that soldiers of our military are all murderers?

Or is there a difference in people killed in a war versus people killed for money?

You seem to be saying the former. That our laws are all about ethical lessons and we can't have any deviation because we as a people are completely incapable of telling the difference between the two types of killing.

Their 'isolation' is relative.

It is not "relative" that convicted criminals sentenced to life are isolated from general society. They are physically removed from interaction with general society. I am rather certain that it is what DBT meant.

Possibly, but DBT is mistaken.

How can he be "mistaken" that incarcerated convicted criminals sentenced to life are physically removed from interaction with general society? Or are you dwelling on the rare isolated cases of failures in the system where such criminal is released due to screwed up parole?

Those 'rare isolated cases' cost innocent lives.

One mistake cost 6 women their lives at the hands of a serial killer.

So again, Sabine you're willing to minimize the danger to life posed by these heinous criminals to the prison personnel, but unwilling to do so for those on death row. Even though they are also members of a 'rare isolated' bunch.

So why are you advocating the death penalty when a life sentence without parole would meet the goal of them being "taken out of the population so that they never hurt anyone ever again". Or are you still dwelling on justifying the death penalty based on isolated occurrences of Prison staff being harmed by an inmate?

There you go again, minimizing the lives of the prison personnel. Yeah, tell the prison guard widow and her kids that that was just an isolated case and her husband's safety was less important than the life of a heinous criminal.

 

[Unbeatable]

Actually no, I have a great perspective. My best friend's sister is married to a penal system security officer. So I have a really good perspective on what is at stake. Do you?

Yes, but to be clear, it seems that you and I disagree about what it means for a perspective to be good. You seem to think that admitting your personal stake in the situation is actually a point in your favor, while to me it just confirms that you're not someone whose suggestions on this matter can be trusted, because you're biased in favor of one of the parties involved. You're spending an inordinate proportion of time considering their interests instead of balancing them against others. I believe that relative to the context under discussion(society-level decision-making with far-reaching consequences with regards to the interests of numerous parties), a biased perspective is bad, and an impartial perspective is good.

Oh, because I actually deal in the reality of the situation, then I can't be trusted to know what's at stake.

You don't deal in the reality of the situation. You deal in a tiny segment of reality, and complain when people point out how tiny it is and that other segments warrant more attention. You know what's at stake for the guards, but nobody even disagrees with you about the fact that guards are at risk. The disagreement is about the significance of risk to the guards in light of the big picture; it's about what's at stake on the level of society, which includes both the interests of people who work in the criminal justice system as well as those of people who are at the system's mercy, among others. No, the safety of guards is not sacred. Some level of risk is acceptable. There are more important matters to consider.

There you go again, minimizing the lives of the prison personnel. Yeah, tell the prison guard widow and her kids that that was just an isolated case and her husband's safety was less important than the life of a heinous criminal.

Doesn't she know the risks? Doesn't the guard? Did human traffickers force him to become a prison guard, or did he choose to subject himself to that risk? If he thought the job wasn't safe enough, maybe he should've quit.

 

[Jayjay]

You could argue that a prison guard is doing his job voluntarily, but what about the other inmates? They are also at risk.

Ideally, of course the dangerous individuals should be isolated and there should be adequate measures to protect the guards, so in the end it's not about security, it's about cost of that security. The way prisons are run in the US seems to cut costs at the expense of security (of inmates, and to lesser extent the guards), which together with the appeal process distorts the comparison of costs between death penalty versus incarceration.