Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we should keep it

13 (24.5%)

No, we should ban it

40 (75.5%)

Total Members Voted: 52

[werty892]

Nobody has been executed since 1964 for anything other than killing people. According to wikipedia. I think people who kill others and get death row usually kill a lot(not just one) and it is premeditated. This would make the the kind that escapes, no?

[XXSockXX]

“The death penalty can be tolerated only by extreme statist reactionaries  who demand a state that is so powerful that it has the right to kill.”-Noam Chomsky

Yeah, I have always wondered why the American people, who have a strong tendency to be distrustful of any sort of government don't have a huge problem with the state having the power to kill them (possibly after a wrong accusation).

While I can understand some arguments for the death penalty, like the sense of justice and vengeance it provides to victims, and the fact that some individuals are completely beyond any sort of rehabilitation or therapy, you don't even need to make big moral arguments to find it wrong. It is a cruel punishment, it is very expensive, it does not work as a deterrent, and it is irreversible, which makes the possibility of error much more frightening.

[martinuzz]

(possibly after a wrong accusation).

Which is where you point out one of the main arguments against death penalty. It is irrevokeable. Laws are upheld by human beings. Human beings are prone to error.

[XXSockXX]

(possibly after a wrong accusation).

Which is where you point out one of the main arguments against death penalty. It is irrevokeable. Laws are upheld by human beings. Human beings are prone to error.

Yeah, that is one of the most important arguments for me. I guess the margin of error is much higher than the 4% cited in this thread, because many of the wrongly sentenced were not executed for other reasons, like states abolishing the death penalty or sentences being changed to life without parole.
Judical errors are not that uncommon, so I think the idea of the state having the power to put you to death due to such an error is pretty horrible.

[Jimmy]

There are some people in world that, bluntly, cannot be allowed in functioning society. That is the main thing going for DP/life imprisonment. The main function of prison/DP here is elimination of said individual and protection of society from them. Retributive element is defining point of any sentence - punishment is harm done to you as a retribution for your actions in past.

There is fundamental philosophical difference here - what do you think the punishment (or sentence) should accomplish? Do you believe that every wrong deed must be punished? Or are you going for more utilitarian approach for the criminal - to affect his behaviour in future? Modern penology takes a bit from retribution, bit from prevention, and bit from rehabilitation.

As for rehabilitative function of prison - it doesn't work for many prisoners (and even in systems that are not that fucked up as in US). Then there is problem of what to do with such people. If the crime was something less significant, then the society is happy just with prevention of said crime for the time of prison sentence. But if the crime was significant you cannot really let such people go free.

As for judicial errors, there is appelate system in place just for this possibility. It is not perfect, but then nothing is.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Some people cannot function within the boundaries imposed by human society. We call them sociopaths, psychopaths, or a variety of different names. Through probably no fault of their own their brain is wired differently to a regular person, with little to no sense of remorse or empathy. It's sad but their problems can often be traced back to their genes.[1]

The death sentence is a rather final method of removing those genes from the common pool in order to avoid propagating the behavior. It certainly serves a purpose, but arguably one that could also be accomplished by life imprisonment instead. The moral debate then devolves into whether one is superior to the other.

From an objective standpoint, the threat of violence and death doesn't end with the criminal system. This is why countries have militaries. It is a threat against others that there exist sections of the government willing to kill other humans to defend their way of life. In essence, the death sentence is society declaring war on behavior it deems so irredeemably abhorrent that only death can remove the threat.

Certainly the death sentence itself is a dangerous tool if used too freely. Who and what defines the crime worthy of death? Is only murder acceptable? What about grievous harm? The edge becomes blurry, and then you have police rounding up political dissidents and lining them up against a wall. But I still maintain there's a place for use of lethal force within society.

[palsch]

The death sentence is a rather final method of removing those genes from the common pool in order to avoid propagating the behavior.

Half arsed eugenics for the criminally insane now? Can we not?




Anyway, because I haven't really made any declarative statements on this, my general view;

The death penalty is an abomination that should not be allowed in any nation for any reason. General reasons for this;

1) Personal moral belief that killing another person is never excusable and that a state doing so makes all those in the state complicit with such an act, even against their will.

2) The state will always have the power to kill people, but this should be so absolutely limited as to be an extreme matter when it does happen. Meaning it should only be an absolute last resort in cases where there is an immediate threat that must be dealt with for the safety of others. That it will happen in policing and military situations is unavoidable, but should still be subject to review and enquiry and always viewed as a failing. Giving the state any power to kill outside those conditions, or viewing any execution as an acceptable outcome the state actively worked towards, is extreme and dangerous.

3) The death penalty is irreversible, absolutely closing the door to any future revelations of innocence or potential rehabilitation. And I do not believe that rehabilitation is ever absolutely impossible. That doesn't mean it will happen in every case eventually, but rather than leaving the door open for remorse, education and eventual change always makes sense.

4) Speaking here of the US in particular; it is grotesquely expensive while still being disgustingly inefficient. That it is recognised so widely as inhumane and unacceptable makes it incredibly hard for the US to execute people, meaning that appeals drag on for decades and efficient methods of execution are blocked. Doctors in the US are blocked from assisting with executions by at least one major medical body, while the drugs used have been the subject of trade blocks by countries and companies opposed to their use. This has predictable outcomes. Combine that with the special treatment given to death row prisoners and you have high costs combined with inhumane executions.

5) And still looking at the US, you still have all this happening in a distorted legal system, where prosecutors and politicians are motivated to push for the death penalty even when doubt is cast on a conviction. Combine that with systematic inequalities in the American justice system and you have a disproportionate amount of black Americans on death row. Being black is a stronger predictor for the death penalty being used than legal aggravating factors such as a murder committed alongside another felony. While you could say that these are problems with the system and not the death penalty, leaving such a powerful tool in the hands of such a flawed system seems absolutely backwards to me. That would be an argument for at least a moratorium on the death penalty till the other flaws in the system are worked out.

6) It does not work to deter future crimes, is an inefficient method of removing someone from the population (due to economic and moral costs to society being far higher than life imprisonment) and obviously doesn't work as a method of rehabilitation, so doesn't serve any valid purpose of punishment.

Further to that last point, my general view of legal punishment is that it should be tailored to achieve the greatest good for society at the lowest cost to that same society. I would strongly argue this means you can only take into account deterrence, compensation, safety (removing a direct threat) and rehabilitation. Punishment for punishment's sake should not be allowed, except insofar as it has a deterrence or rehabilitative function. Any punishment which could be more efficiently replaced with one with lower social costs should be. So generally I believe that even imprisonment should be used lightly, with direct rehabilitative functions used as a first priority, combined with compensative labour or fines. Imprisonment should generally only be used to remove threats, as an extreme rehabilitation tool or as extreme deterrence method when financial or other factors won't make the impact.

[aenri]

...

Well, I like that prison and the results it produces very much, but there are several problems with it. (please don't bash me with perfection fallacy, I know it sounds like that

1. Cost - It's not a problem if it is financed by Norway's oil, but poorer country will have probably trouble with it
2. Selection of criminals - from what I read in article, you need to apply for that prison and probably present some justification. From this I believe that Norway's authorities are closely monitoring who gets into that experimental prison, who has the potential to get rehabilitated in such institution and deny the other applications.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Application from another prison:
The inmate must apply personally. In the application, one should say something about plans and motivation. The department puts weight on evaluations from the delivering prison. Type of crime/organized crime, danger of escape and the structure of the prisoner population are important points in the evaluation.

3. The point of that is, that I don't think it could work for all prisoners. Organized crime/mafia comes to mind. With them, there is also a possibility that they will continue with criminal activities from prison (or they will pressure witnesses by proxy). I believe such prison is inadequate for preventing it.
4. Even if we believe the numbers and underlying statistics and take into consideration the selection process, there still is 16% reoffending rate.

EDIT:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...
5) And still looking at the US, you still have all this happening in a distorted legal system, where prosecutors and politicians are motivated to push for the death penalty even when doubt is cast on a conviction. Combine that with systematic inequalities in the American justice system and you have a disproportionate amount of black Americans on death row. Being black is a stronger predictor for the death penalty being used than legal aggravating factors such as a murder committed alongside another felony. While you could say that these are problems with the system and not the death penalty, leaving such a powerful tool in the hands of such a flawed system seems absolutely backwards to me. That would be an argument for at least a moratorium on the death penalty till the other flaws in the system are worked out.
...

I don't see any disproportionate amount of blacks on the death row in US. From your DRUSA report - 41,71 of all death row inmates were black. That corresponds pretty much exactly with 39% of all prison inmates being black - source, p.19. Which is pretty high, because they are only 13% of the population as whole. I know it isn't that simple as I point out, but you need to point the disproportion to me.

[Graknorke]

There is fundamental philosophical difference here - what do you think the punishment (or sentence) should accomplish? Do you believe that every wrong deed must be punished? Or are you going for more utilitarian approach for the criminal - to affect his behaviour in future? Modern penology takes a bit from retribution, bit from prevention, and bit from rehabilitation.

I am not a fan of punishment at all, as a thing. Unless punishment can be brought about at the exact moment of the offence it is utterly worthless. It doesn't prevent these things from happening, and as long as people have an understanding of the punishment system it doesn't actually stop a person from wanting to do it either. The only way I can imagine it being effective as a deterrent would be if it were handed out arbitrarily and without any warning to keep people scared of them.

[palsch]

I don't see any disproportionate amount of blacks on the death row in US. From your DRUSA report - 41,71 of all death row inmates were black. That corresponds pretty much exactly with 39% of all prison inmates being black - source, p.19. Which is pretty high, because they are only 13% of the population as whole. I know it isn't that simple as I point out, but you need to point the disproportion to me.

Three immediate responses came to mind.

Firstly, the prison population as a whole being disproportionately black isn't an excuse for a part of the prison population also being disproportionately black.

Second, the general prison population reflects identifiable racial inequalities (the sentencing guidelines for crack vs powder cocaine being the classic example) that shouldn't carry to capital crimes, so if anything this shows capital crimes have a larger invisible (or non-obvious) racial bias than regular crimes where such systemic legal differences contribute.

Thirdly, the second link was to show that this effect is a measurable difference in the sentences passed on people due to their race. I think this is the most significant point. Given two similar cases and crimes, juries are more likely to give a black defendant the death penalty than a white defendant. This is a stronger predicting factor than some legally considerable aggravating factors. This is both horrifying and not surprising at all. People do generally have unconscious racial biases that you would expect to have an impact in this sort of case. As a trivial example, a recent study on the assessment of identical legal memos when changing the author's race. I would fully expect such an effect to carry through to jury (and yes, judicial) decisions as well.

[aenri]

There is fundamental philosophical difference here - what do you think the punishment (or sentence) should accomplish? Do you believe that every wrong deed must be punished? Or are you going for more utilitarian approach for the criminal - to affect his behaviour in future? Modern penology takes a bit from retribution, bit from prevention, and bit from rehabilitation.

I am not a fan of punishment at all, as a thing. Unless punishment can be brought about at the exact moment of the offence it is utterly worthless. It doesn't prevent these things from happening, and as long as people have an understanding of the punishment system it doesn't actually stop a person from wanting to do it either. The only way I can imagine it being effective as a deterrent would be if it were handed out arbitrarily and without any warning to keep people scared of them.

I must disagree with you on this issue, because my belief is that punishment must be exacted on the criminal for the crime. The unavoidability and inevitability of punishment is the main component of detterence from doing criminal acts for general populace. Reparations alone for crime just doesn't cut it for me. I consider punishment to be the price of the crime, which is distinct from the reparations of the damage. And what about crimes where the reparations amount is almost impossible to determine and there could be no restoration to original condition (so called victimless crimes) - classic examples are bigamy or statutory rape?
 
I also think that punishment prevents some crimes from happening (at least the crimes that would be done by the man sent to prison - if prison sentence is the punishment).

Understanding of the system doesn't stop people from doing it, but they have to shoulder risk of being punished. The point is that they stand to gain something from their criminal activity. It could be likened to a gamble with the authorities.

Three immediate responses came to mind.

Firstly, the prison population as a whole being disproportionately black isn't an excuse for a part of the prison population also being disproportionately black.

Second, the general prison population reflects identifiable racial inequalities (the sentencing guidelines for crack vs powder cocaine being the classic example) that shouldn't carry to capital crimes, so if anything this shows capital crimes have a larger invisible (or non-obvious) racial bias than regular crimes where such systemic legal differences contribute.

Thirdly, the second link was to show that this effect is a measurable difference in the sentences passed on people due to their race. I think this is the most significant point. Given two similar cases and crimes, juries are more likely to give a black defendant the death penalty than a white defendant. This is a stronger predicting factor than some legally considerable aggravating factors. This is both horrifying and not surprising at all. People do generally have unconscious racial biases that you would expect to have an impact in this sort of case. As a trivial example, a recent study on the assessment of identical legal memos when changing the author's race. I would fully expect such an effect to carry through to jury (and yes, judicial) decisions as well.

My lack of disproportionality was referring to the general prison population, where the numbers are almost identical. The numbers are probably skewed in blacks disfavor.
As for second link, it really is upsetting that prejudices come into play even in jury duty. I also agree that it is unavoidable having some unconscious racial bias, even when trying to be impartial.
The only thing I don't agree with you is that, the juries should have sentenced also nonblack defendants to death in similar cases as black defendants.

[Zangi]

I suppose avoiding prison is a good reason for many people. 
Of course, there is also the point that people would be willing to do more to prevent themselves being caught to avoid said punishment.

(I just wanted to link that comic.)

[Graknorke]

There is fundamental philosophical difference here - what do you think the punishment (or sentence) should accomplish? Do you believe that every wrong deed must be punished? Or are you going for more utilitarian approach for the criminal - to affect his behaviour in future? Modern penology takes a bit from retribution, bit from prevention, and bit from rehabilitation.

I am not a fan of punishment at all, as a thing. Unless punishment can be brought about at the exact moment of the offence it is utterly worthless. It doesn't prevent these things from happening, and as long as people have an understanding of the punishment system it doesn't actually stop a person from wanting to do it either. The only way I can imagine it being effective as a deterrent would be if it were handed out arbitrarily and without any warning to keep people scared of them.

I must disagree with you on this issue, because my belief is that punishment must be exacted on the criminal for the crime. The unavoidability and inevitability of punishment is the main component of detterence from doing criminal acts for general populace. Reparations alone for crime just doesn't cut it for me. I consider punishment to be the price of the crime, which is distinct from the reparations of the damage. And what about crimes where the reparations amount is almost impossible to determine and there could be no restoration to original condition (so called victimless crimes) - classic examples are bigamy or statutory rape?

I wouldn't say that punishment is a good deterrent from crime. If I crime is serious enough to be a criminal offence there are far better reasons to not do it than the law. If there isn't then there's no reason for it to be law.
And that revenge thing isn't something I like. At all. Causing extra suffering just because it is somehow the 'price' that a person should pay isn't particularly productive.

[i2amroy]

Personally I think the death penalty should only be invoked in cases where the amount of work expanded to keep the person from escaping and continuing their criminal acts would outweigh the amount of work that they could perform if kept alive. Of course I'm also of the opinion that all prisons should involve some form of penal labor towards progress, preferably something that actually helps society as a whole rather than just making license plates.

[Grek]

but still, as said. there are people who can't be helped by any amount of therapy, and it's either death penalty or life sentence in a psych ward for these. i won't say death is better - it's just cheaper.

This is specifically untrue and has been debunked previously in the thread. Incarceration for death row inmates costs five times as much as it does for those serving a life sentence without parole, even before the cost of appeals. Unsurprisingly, people who are going to be executed try much, much harder to escape than other prisoners and need much stronger security to keep them from doing so. Giving someone a life sentence with weekly, or even daily therapy sessions would be several times cheaper than having someone executed.

I wouldn't say that punishment is a good deterrent from crime. If I crime is serious enough to be a criminal offence there are far better reasons to not do it than the law. If there isn't then there's no reason for it to be law.

Punishment is absolutely a deterrent for crime. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[alexandertnt]

Punishment can be used as a deterrent, but that's often used as an excuse to justify revenge.

"This person should be heavily punished to make me feel good by causing harm to someone who "deserves" it to deter crime"