Capital Punishment

[brimstoneSalad]

I'd love to hear your take on this Brimstone. (I hope this didn't seem like I didn't want you to join in, but I wasn't sure if this thread would be well received.)

I don't want to derail things. If #1 and #3 are confirmed, it seems almost impossible that the person would be able to rejoin society. The question becomes cost.
I think Jebus' suggestion was quite good; keep them locked up but require them to pull their own weight.

The trouble with them making MORE than their cost is that the state then has an incentive to create criminals and imprison people in labor camps.

Like with the milk and egg industry, while it may be theoretically possible to obtain these things without abuse, in practice that is rarely the case due to commercial motives to cut corners -- so, due to the practical problems, we should try to avoid these things. The same would apply to the commercial prison labor industry; in theory possible to do (and repaying society is nice in theory), but in practice, could cause a lot of problems. This is how slavery used to work, after all (mainly criminals sold into slavery).

[PsYcHo]

I don't want to derail things. If #1 and #3 are confirmed, it seems almost impossible that the person would be able to rejoin society. The question becomes cost.

I didn't think you would derail the thread, but you are very thorough with your responses. I wanted to make sure this would be something others would want to discuss. I was a bit inebriated when I proposed it, and your arguments tend to be very detailed, and I was not sure I could respond adequately.

The trouble with them making MORE than their cost is that the state then has an incentive to create criminals and imprison people in labor camps.

Hadn't thought of that. How could we handle them in the current society, How would be the best way to handle them in a small society?

[PsYcHo]

I

I have often thought about the option of simply making prisons a pleasant place to live where people can actually be happy. I fear, however, that a motive not to adhere to the law might then be lacking. This would also only work in a world where poverty is non-existent (for example through a base income); otherwise there would be a motive to commit crimes. .

They actually use this method in a few countries. (As far as base income, criminals who commit crimes for monetary gains do not concern me in this thread.I am specifically referring to psychopathic murderers. ) In the current society, what should we do with them? What about in a small society?

[Jebus]

I

I have often thought about the option of simply making prisons a pleasant place to live where people can actually be happy. I fear, however, that a motive not to adhere to the law might then be lacking. This would also only work in a world where poverty is non-existent (for example through a base income); otherwise there would be a motive to commit crimes. .

They actually use this method in a few countries.

I think Norway and Sweden have the nicest prisons in the world. I liked this short documentary about an American prison warden visiting Scandinavian prisons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfEsz812Q1I

[PsYcHo]

I think Norway and Sweden have the nicest prisons in the world. I liked this short documentary about an American prison warden visiting Scandinavian prisons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfEsz812Q1I

I haven't watched these yet, but also look into Israeli prisons. Most murderers are victims of circumstance. But not all. I love that they have near zero prison violence.

I appreciate all the great responses to this query, but no one has addressed the main premise. How should we deal with a psychopathic murderer in detail? Not in society as it currently exist, but in a small collection of apocalyptic survivors. Or in current society, but please elaborate.

[Jebus]

no one has addressed the main premise. How should we deal with a psychopathic murderer in detail? Not in society as it currently exist, but in a small collection of apocalyptic survivors.

Difficult to answer as there are too many unknowns. I could probably give an answer if you give more details about the apocalyptic scenario.

[EquALLity]

I could only justify violating the will of someone to live, if it is better than allowing them to violate the will of others to live. If someone breaks into my house and attacks my wife with a weapon, I would kill them to save her life. Murder is always a bad thing, but in a case such as this it is better than the murder of my wife and likely myself, not to mention the future victims this criminal would likely claim.

That makes sense, but it's not like you're stopping a murder that's going on; the murder already happened. The danger is gone.

In terms of danger to society, it is not uncommon for a killer to assault and kill a prison guard, or just someone working in the prison to try and rehabilitate the prisoners. The worst of the worst killers I am referencing assault staff for fun. Are these staff members not a part of society? If given the option to decide the fate of a murderer, would you yourself be willing to be put in the shoes of a prison employee? (Just so it is clear, this is a pointed question, but not a malicious one.) What could we do as a society to better deal with these murderers?

Do you have evidence this is a significant problem?
I don't know, handle the prisoners more carefully? I don't think the solution is killing all murders just in case a few prison guards get injured.

I'm not sure why you keep asking irrelevant personal questions.

[PsYcHo]

Difficult to answer as there are too many unknowns. I could probably give an answer if you give more details about the apocalyptic scenario.

Something along the lines of a nuclear war, or a plague that kills the majority of civilization. Survivors are grouped in small communities without modern conveniences.

[PsYcHo]

Do you have evidence this is a significant problem?
I don't know, handle the prisoners more carefully? I don't think the solution is killing all murders just in case a few prison guards get injured.

I'm not sure why you keep asking irrelevant personal questions.

http://www.aca.org/ACA_PROD_IMIS/Docs/C ... 0Notes.pdf

The point about handling the prisoners more carefully made me think. Some prisons have a system where the most dangerous inmates are let in and out of their cells and fed with no contact possible. If this were to become the norm instead of the exception, it would invalidate my point on the guard's safety.

As far as the personal questions, I find it helpful to consider any view involving people from multiple sides. I have often changed my views based upon considering "What would I do in this person's shoes". I understand your position, but it helps me see the reasoning behind it. I do not mean them to be seen as an attack question. I apologize if they come off as such.

Your position is obviously under no circumstance should we execute people. Do you have any ideas on how we could make these prisoners somehow beneficial to society?

[EquALLity]

http://www.aca.org/ACA_PROD_IMIS/Docs/C ... 0Notes.pdf

The point about handling the prisoners more carefully made me think. Some prisons have a system where the most dangerous inmates are let in and out of their cells and fed with no contact possible. If this were to become the norm instead of the exception, it would invalidate my point on the guard's safety.

I don't think we should isolate the prisoners (solitary confinement), if that's what you're suggesting. Perhaps the guards should wear protective clothing, and the prisoners who are particularly dangerous should be closely monitored.

There have only been 45 fatalities from 1999-2008 due to violence in prisons. That's a pretty small number. We killed a lot more prisoners over that period of time than guards who were killed. This also applies to prison in general, not to death row prisons. So it's not like that 45 would be 0 if we killed all the people on death row immediately.
There were almost 50,000 injuries due to assault, and that's pretty bad, but we don't know how significant they are.

As far as the personal questions, I find it helpful to consider any view involving people from multiple sides. I have often changed my views based upon considering "What would I do in this person's shoes". I understand your position, but it helps me see the reasoning behind it. I do not mean them to be seen as an attack question. I apologize if they come off as such.

Oh, no problem! They didn't come off as personal attacks.
I'm just trying to say that whether or not someone would do something personally is irrelevant to whether or not it's actually the best decision.

Your position is obviously under no circumstance should we execute people. Do you have any ideas on how we could make these prisoners somehow beneficial to society?

Well, I'm not sure about under no circumstance, because I wouldn't say that we should definitely do anything in every context. Everything is context dependent.

But I can't think of a reasonable scenario in which execution would be morally acceptable.
As for how to make them beneficial:
Make the justice system more about rehabilitation than punishment (so, abolish the private prison system and solitary confinement etc.).
Not everybody will be rehabilitated, of course. For them, they probably can't be that beneficial to society. That doesn't really matter, though, if they still want to live. Maybe they could be beneficial by producing art, or something, but there aren't really a lot of options.
Again, though, just because they aren't beneficial to society doesn't mean they don't have moral value.

However, I really think that a large problem is that our prison system is very bad in changing people for the better.