Capital Punishment

[PsYcHo]

Should the government be allowed to kill individuals? This is a topic that is divided mostly along party lines, R=yes, D=no. But I am specifically referring to a specific set of guidelines.

1. There is absolutely no doubt as to the individual's guilt. (Video of murder, multiple [5+] witnesses, signed confession/manifesto before the act)
2. Individual is not on the Autism spectrum. (Fully coherent, possible above avg. IQ, just sadistic)
3. Shows no signs of remorse, and was not under the influence of mind-altering drugs during the commission of their crime.
{Now to make it interesting}
4. Their victim was a close friend/family member of yours. (Remember the brutal part of the murder)
5. You alone are tasked with the decision of deciding if they live or face a humane execution. However, if you spare their life, you are responsible for them for the remainder of theirs. ($47.50) per day.

(Now this may seem like a loaded flame-bait question, but I believe this forum is capable of well-thought out answers. (Brimstone, let a few people answer before you tear me apart on this please! )

*Note* this is not a moral question. I adhere to the belief that is better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man be punished.In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

This is a practical application question. How should we as a society deal with such an individual, and would you accept the burden of determining their fate?

[EquALLity]

What do you mean, it's not a moral question?
That's what all questions like this are about. If not because it's moral/morally acceptable would you kill a person? What is this supposed to be about if not ethics?

I'm on my mobile right now, so I'm just going to make a few points about why the guidelines you have don't line up with reality.
1. You implied that keeping prisoners alive costs more money than killing them- not true (in the US).
2. Killing people who are 'definitely' guilty isn't what were doing. It's something like 1/25 people on death row are innocent.
3. There's no such thing as a 'humane execution'. You can't humanely do the wrong thing.

As for why it's the wrong thing- it's violating the will to live of a person, and there's no good aspect of the death penalty that makes up for that. We don't have reason to believe it deters people from crime more than imprisonent.

Also, it doesn't matter if you are related to the crime. That's merely an emotional appeal.

So I say it's wrong. What do you think about this, and my points?

[Jebus]

The government should never kill people. This devalues the value of life in the eyes of the people. Although I don't think it's possible to have a penal system that pays for itself, I believe at least the cost of food should be covered for by the inmates' work. I am ok with the idea of a criminal starving to death because he refuses to work.

I also think lifetime criminals who are no longer deemed a danger to society should have the option of opting for potentially harmful experiments in exchange for a shorter sentence.

[PsYcHo]

The government should never kill people. This devalues the value of life in the eyes of the people. Although I don't think it's possible to have a penal system that pays for itself, I believe at least the cost of food should be covered for by the inmates' work. I am ok with the idea of a criminal starving to death because he refuses to work.

I also think lifetime criminals who are no longer deemed a danger to society should have the option of opting for potentially harmful experiments in exchange for a shorter sentence.

Interesting perspective. Thank you, and I mostly agree.

I do wonder about the idea of deeming a person to no longer be a danger to society, though. The people most likely to fit the criteria I proposed are psychopaths. Not all psychopaths are murderers, they simply do not feel emotions like "normal" people. They can pass a lie detector test easily, and are very good at blending in with others. They often project the image of a "model" prisoner, because doing so will benefit them. What precautions would be necessary to monitor those who opt for the early release experimentation?

And for an added twist for anyone considering this, let's assume a massive plague has ended modern society as we know it. 90% of the population has died. You live in a small community of survivors, around 200 people. There is no government. How would you handle such a criminal?

I

[PsYcHo]

What do you mean, it's not a moral question?
That's what all questions like this are about. If not because it's moral/morally acceptable would you kill a person? What is this supposed to be about if not ethics?

I'm on my mobile right now, so I'm just going to make a few points about why the guidelines you have don't line up with reality.
1. You implied that keeping prisoners alive costs more money than killing them- not true (in the US).
2. Killing people who are 'definitely' guilty isn't what were doing. It's something like 1/25 people on death row are innocent.
3. There's no such thing as a 'humane execution'. You can't humanely do the wrong thing.

As for why it's the wrong thing- it's violating the will to live of a person, and there's no good aspect of the death penalty that makes up for that. We don't have reason to believe it deters people from crime more than imprisonent.

Also, it doesn't matter if you are related to the crime. That's merely an emotional appeal.

So I say it's wrong. What do you think about this, and my points?

In response to the morality question, you have me there. I considered this today and there really is no way to address this without at least considering one's morals. I will respond to the next 3 points in order.

1.- You are correct in that. I believe waaaay to many people are in prison for b.s. reasons, and it should be reserved for people who are a danger to others. These non-violent people drain money for mostly ideological crimes that should not exist. (Drugs, prostitution, etc.) And I know of several instances with death-row inmates being exonerated, which is why a large portion of people oppose capital punishment. Ideally, if there is any doubt about their guilt they should not be in prison in the first place.

2.-That is a major problem. That is why I specifically set the guidelines I did. I do not believe the death penalty should be used except for extreme cases in which there is no doubt as to guilt, and no extenuating circumstances. Murdering a family for fun is a long way from robbing a store and accidentally shooting the clerk.

3. If all the criteria I set are met, I do not believe it is the wrong thing. But I see no need to inflict suffering upon even the worst of criminals. Fast and painless death.

I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent in the least. Crazy people are just crazy. I believe it is just an effective way to rid the population of someone with no value and an inherent risk of danger from society.

In regards to it being an emotional appeal, it does matter. I added an scenario to the original question about society collapsing. If you were in a small group of self-governed people, and one of your neighbors killed your child, how would you handle this criminal?

Almost forgot, I think your response about it being wrong was honest and taking the moral high ground. I may disagree with you, but I believe you have very valid points and are only trying to show how it is not consistent with a moral (based upon your own morals) society.

[miniboes]

I personally believe that punishment should be kept to a minimum and rehabilitation prioritized. Surely there are some people beyond saving, but I do not believe anyone deserves to die or be in prison, like many argue. I think arguing that someone deserves death is appealing to emotions, a gut feeling of justice, more than anything else. As with most things, I think we should look at the well-being of the convicts and society as a whole.

Of course, someone like the person you sketched should be isolated from larger society; he has to be either imprisoned or killed. So what is worse, to die or to spend a lifetime in prison, away from loved ones and all that gives your life meaning? I can't say, death may be better. Maybe it should be for the convict to decide; a sentence to life in prison with the option of euthanasia.

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-existant (for example through a base income); otherwise there would be a motive to commit crimes.

Are perhaps not being able to see your loved ones and the shame of being convicted enough punishment in a world where nobody is in poverty? In a world where man does not profit from another's loss? It's a hypothetical I have no answer to.

To answer your question: I don't know, maybe he should decide.

[EquALLity]

In response to the morality question, you have me there. I considered this today and there really is no way to address this without at least considering one's morals. I will respond to the next 3 points in order.

LOL, ok.

1.- You are correct in that. I believe waaaay to many people are in prison for b.s. reasons, and it should be reserved for people who are a danger to others. These non-violent people drain money for mostly ideological crimes that should not exist. (Drugs, prostitution, etc.) And I know of several instances with death-row inmates being exonerated, which is why a large portion of people oppose capital punishment. Ideally, if there is any doubt about their guilt they should not be in prison in the first place.

Ah, ok.

2.-That is a major problem. That is why I specifically set the guidelines I did. I do not believe the death penalty should be used except for extreme cases in which there is no doubt as to guilt, and no extenuating circumstances. Murdering a family for fun is a long way from robbing a store and accidentally shooting the clerk.

I see, alright.

3. If all the criteria I set are met, I do not believe it is the wrong thing. But I see no need to inflict suffering upon even the worst of criminals. Fast and painless death.

I think it's wrong simply because it's adding more suffering in the world for no good reason (by violating the will of somebody to live). How do you justify that? It's not like there's anything good about the death penalty that can make up for that. It's only bad.

I believe it is just an effective way to rid the population of someone with no value and an inherent risk of danger from society.

How is it any better than keeping them in prison for life, in terms of danger to society?

In regards to it being an emotional appeal, it does matter. I added an scenario to the original question about society collapsing. If you were in a small group of self-governed people, and one of your neighbors killed your child, how would you handle this criminal?

It might matter in practice in determining what most people would do, but ethically speaking, it makes no difference. It doesn't impact what should be done; it only tells us how human bias might lead to people doing the wrong thing.

Almost forgot, I think your response about it being wrong was honest and taking the moral high ground. I may disagree with you, but I believe you have very valid points and are only trying to show how it is not consistent with a moral (based upon your own morals) society

Well, great. I'm glad you don't think it was dishonest.

[PsYcHo]

I personally believe that punishment should be kept to a minimum and rehabilitation prioritized. Surely there are some people beyond saving, but I do not believe anyone deserves to die or be in prison, like many argue. I think arguing that someone deserves death is appealing to emotions, a gut feeling of justice, more than anything else. As with most things, I think we should look at the well-being of the convicts and society as a whole.

I agree with you 100% on this in the majority of cases. Prisons are often ran by for-profit companies who simply warehouse as many people as cheaply as possible, the majority for drug related offenses. I am only talking about the worst of the worst.

In a small community of people, how should a non-remorseful murderer be dealt with? Any ideas on perhaps a way to make them beneficial to society? Perhaps imprisonment, but if they wish to eat they must grow and maintain a garden to supply not just them, but others with food?

[PsYcHo]

3. If all the criteria I set are met, I do not believe it is the wrong thing. But I see no need to inflict suffering upon even the worst of criminals. Fast and painless death.

I think it's wrong simply because it's adding more suffering in the world for no good reason (by violating the will of somebody to live). How do you justify that? It's not like there's anything good about the death penalty that can make up for that. It's only bad.

I believe it is just an effective way to rid the population of someone with no value and an inherent risk of danger from society.

How is it any better than keeping them in prison for life, in terms of danger to society?

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.

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?

[PsYcHo]

(Brimstone, let a few people answer before you tear me apart on this please! )

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.)