Capital Punishment

[brimstoneSalad]

Perhaps the guards should wear protective clothing, and the prisoners who are particularly dangerous should be closely monitored.

Armor is uncomfortable, nobody wants to wear that. It's great in theory, but when people don't use it, it's useless.
Monitoring prisoners requires more resources; you're basically talking about paying somebody full time, and creating more infrastructure (like cameras everywhere, that have to be bought, installed, and maintained over time, as well as a computer system for tracking).

All of this drastically increases cost. Isolation is the only affordable mechanism, although they don't have to be isolated from other prisoners.

Again, though, just because they aren't beneficial to society doesn't mean they don't have moral value.

The issue is that cost takes money away from social programs, so it continues to harm people to support prisoners.

[EquALLity]

Armor is uncomfortable, nobody wants to wear that. It's great in theory, but when people don't use it, it's useless.

Maybe it should be a job requirement, or prison guards should be instructed on the risks of not wearing it.

Also, I don't think the numbers of harm towards prison guards are significant enough to be more harmful than killing the prisoners.
There's also the additional harm done from 'botched executions': http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/some-ex ... =8&did=478

Do you support the death penalty, by the way?

Monitoring prisoners requires more resources; you're basically talking about paying somebody full time, and creating more infrastructure (like cameras everywhere, that have to be bought, installed, and maintained over time, as well as a computer system for tracking).

Alright, I don't see a problem with that.

All of this drastically increases cost. Isolation is the only affordable mechanism, although they don't have to be isolated from other prisoners.

How would you isolate them from guards but not other prisoners?

The issue is that cost takes money away from social programs, so it continues to harm people to support prisoners.

Not necessarily. We could just close tax loopholes and make businesses and the rich pay a better share, and our social programs could be expanded, as could the ethics of our prison system.

Ending the corrupt private prison system (which Donald Trump wants to expand, by the way) would also give us more money for this.
Also not that execution is pretty expensive also.

[PsYcHo]

How would you isolate them from guards but not other prisoners?

Some prisons use a system where the worst inmates are housed in a special wing. For their time outside, the cell is unlocked remotely, and they are allowed access to the yard. Problems can arise if they refuse to return to their cell, though.

[EquALLity]

How would you isolate them from guards but not other prisoners?

Some prisons use a system where the worst inmates are housed in a special wing. For their time outside, the cell is unlocked remotely, and they are allowed access to the yard. Problems can arise if they refuse to return to their cell, though.

Perhaps guards in the special wing should have to wear armor when there.

Do you still support the death penalty?

[brimstoneSalad]

Maybe it should be a job requirement, or prison guards should be instructed on the risks of not wearing it.

People are bad at risk assessment. Just telling them something is risky is not necessarily adequate to them understanding it, or justify the harm to them when they get unlucky. This is also the issue with legalizing drug use.

This could also make guards more hostile to inmates: People can respond more violently when they're afraid.

Making it a job requirement would probably force administration to quadruple the salary, and the armor alone would cost thousands of dollars.
It's hard to put into words how uncomfortable effective body armor is. There's a big problem with police not wearing body armor because of that, and they're going up against people with guns (which makes the armor lighter, and the consequences of not wearing it more serious).

It's almost impossible to make stab-proof armor, and requires heavy steel or ceramic plates (which are also rigid) throughout the armor.
An ice pick will go right through a bullet resistant vest like a needle through cloth because of how woven armor works. Close range combat also means the assailant can more easily aim and take advantages of any opening in the armor; if your neck isn't covered, that's where the shiv is going. How about arm pit? Groin? These areas are almost impossible to armor because they have to be flexible. Making them less so inhibits mobility so much that the guard becomes nearly useless.

In the end, you're basically talking about putting a guard in a mech suit if you want real protection. We're looking at probably something on the order of a hundred thousand dollars a suit. At that point, you might as well just make them remote controlled and have robots guarding the prisoners.

While that's not financially viable, I would support that on the grounds of cool factor. But really, you might as well just isolate the convicts from the guards.

Also, I don't think the numbers of harm towards prison guards are significant enough to be more harmful than killing the prisoners.

Maybe not, but it's something that has to be considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

Alright, I don't see a problem with that.

It's expensive. The cost has to be considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

How would you isolate them from guards but not other prisoners?

It's how they work. The cell doors open into common areas. The intercom tells them to go back to their cells, the cell doors close. There are probably some documentaries on how maximum security prisons work. The only time they're exposed to guards is basically one by one and with handcuffs on.

Not necessarily.

Necessarily. We never have infinite money. We can always use more in social programs. Every cent spent to support a convict is a cent that can't support somebody else in need, or go to scientific research, etc.

We could just close tax loopholes and make businesses and the rich pay a better share, and our social programs could be expanded, as could the ethics of our prison system.

Or we could doubly expand social programs. There's always a cost.

Also not that execution is pretty expensive also.

Because of appeals and delays, mostly. We need better mechanisms of determining guilt and innocence.

[PsYcHo]

Perhaps guards in the special wing should have to wear armor when there.

Do you still support the death penalty?

The purpose of the special wing is to avoid any guard contact with the inmate(s). Only when they refuse to return to their cells can an interaction occur. Brimstone mentioned the cost of armor for guard, but perhaps a system using a non-lethal gas to render them unconscious could be considered.

As far as supporting the death penalty, as it exists now, no. An innocent person should never be harmed, and any instance is too many. In circumstances such as the "Green River Killer", there is no doubt as to his guilt. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway]. Keeping him alive drains money and resources which could used elsewhere.

[EquALLity]

People are bad at risk assessment. Just telling them something is risky is not necessarily adequate to them understanding it, or justify the harm to them when they get unlucky. This is also the issue with legalizing drug use.

This could also make guards more hostile to inmates: People can respond more violently when they're afraid.

Making it a job requirement would probably force administration to quadruple the salary, and the armor alone would cost thousands of dollars.
It's hard to put into words how uncomfortable effective body armor is. There's a big problem with police not wearing body armor because of that, and they're going up against people with guns (which makes the armor lighter, and the consequences of not wearing it more serious).

It's almost impossible to make stab-proof armor, and requires heavy steel or ceramic plates (which are also rigid) throughout the armor.
An ice pick will go right through a bullet resistant vest like a needle through cloth because of how woven armor works. Close range combat also means the assailant can more easily aim and take advantages of any opening in the armor; if your neck isn't covered, that's where the shiv is going. How about arm pit? Groin? These areas are almost impossible to armor because they have to be flexible. Making them less so inhibits mobility so much that the guard becomes nearly useless.

In the end, you're basically talking about putting a guard in a mech suit if you want real protection. We're looking at probably something on the order of a hundred thousand dollars a suit. At that point, you might as well just make them remote controlled and have robots guarding the prisoners.

While that's not financially viable, I would support that on the grounds of cool factor. But really, you might as well just isolate the convicts from the guards.

'Cool factor'?

Ok, good points. We could just keep the prisoners isolated from the guards (but not isolated like in solitary confinement), then.

Maybe not, but it's something that has to be considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

It's not really a maybe, based on the reasons I gave above.

But sure, things can add up, and show together that it might be better to kill the inmates.
It hasn't been shown that they do, though.

It's expensive. The cost has to be considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

It can be done at different levels, and lessened to the point where it's not really relevant due to combination with isolating prisoners.

Necessarily. We never have infinite money. We can always use more in social programs. Every cent spent to support a convict is a cent that can't support somebody else in need, or go to scientific research, etc.

***

Or we could doubly expand social programs. There's always a cost.

True, but I think that preserving their lives is worthy of that cent.

And again, it costs less to keep them alive than to kill them in our current system.
If you can give a specific system that you think will change that, then that's a completely different story.

Because of appeals and delays, mostly. We need better mechanisms of determining guilt and innocence.

Like what? Do you support the jury system?

https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=1865

[EquALLity]

Perhaps guards in the special wing should have to wear armor when there.

Do you still support the death penalty?

The purpose of the special wing is to avoid any guard contact with the inmate(s). Only when they refuse to return to their cells can an interaction occur. Brimstone mentioned the cost of armor for guard, but perhaps a system using a non-lethal gas to render them unconscious could be considered.

As far as supporting the death penalty, as it exists now, no. An innocent person should never be harmed, and any instance is too many. In circumstances such as the "Green River Killer", there is no doubt as to his guilt. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway]. Keeping him alive drains money and resources which could used elsewhere.

I think we can do it if we stop spending money on pointless wars and weapons, and make corporations and the rich pay reasonable amounts in taxes.

[brimstoneSalad]

But sure, things can add up, and show together that it might be better to kill the inmates.
It hasn't been shown that they do, though.

Hasn't been shown that they don't.

If you want to change the way something currently works -- whether that means abolishing the death penalty where it exists, or implementing a death penalty where it doesn't -- you have to show why we should make that change.

In the case of unknowns, we should leave things alone and remain agnostic and impartial to the situation. (Which is why I won't answer if I support it or not )

It can be done at different levels, and lessened to the point where it's not really relevant due to combination with isolating prisoners.

If prisoners are made to work to pay for themselves -- and enough so that they compensate for the environmental and moral harm of just existing on this Earth -- then those economic arguments for killing them go away.

True, but I think that preserving their lives is worthy of that cent.

Maybe, maybe not. Everything has to be tallied up carefully. There are too many variables to guess at this.

And again, it costs less to keep them alive than to kill them in our current system.

Sure, but where does that money go?

Killing them means more court appeals, more lawyers -- much of the money is going to legal defense and administration, which is providing a lot of public sector jobs, although burdening the courts.

When you keep them alive, more of the money is going in to buying them food -- meat, etc. -- which is more damaging to the environment and other beings. Some of it is going into medical expenses, which is providing some jobs, but more burdening our medical system.

It's not necessarily clear which is worse.

Like what? Do you support the jury system?

We need better lie detectors, for example.

[PsYcHo]

I think we can do it if we stop spending money on pointless wars and weapons, and make corporations and the rich pay reasonable amounts in taxes.

While I do believe a strong military is necessary, there is massive amounts of waste, and pointless wars. In most areas of government there is massive waste, fraud, and little oversight. Until there are serious changes in the way the money is managed, give the government more and they will find more ways to waste it. http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/22/top-6 ... book-2014/

If we must keep them alive, I like the idea of "you don't work, you don't eat". At the very least, they should be able to contribute to the cost of their incarceration.