Print

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

[Virex]

I'm anti death penalty because I don't think vengeance should have any part in our justice system. Sure, vengeance is cathartic, but it carries numerous consequences.

The purpose of our justice system is to rehabilitate, not punish, or at least it should be in my eyes. There's no point or purpose to punishment beyond deterrents and adding additional atrocities upon the ones already committed (except those atrocities are committed by the state, which is apparently somehow better). As for deterrents, there's plenty of debate as to what punishments work for that and what don't; the death penalty certainly does not work for it.

Well if we would pursue this it'd at least save loads of money. When speaking about the effect on someone's mind and behavior, there's a cutoff point around IIRC 3 months, adding more time to a detention has no effect on the inmate whatsoever. Unfortunately, I don't think you can find many people that would agree with capping the punishment for all crimes at 3 months...

[MonkeyHead]

I remember reading somewhere that execution actually costs more than life imprisonment - cant remember where, but this took into account the appeals system as well as the decades that many inmates spend on death row...

Ah, a quick and easy google seach throws up evidence to suggest millions of £/$/€ could be saved by eliminating execution.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://deathpen.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/costs/

Many more than those 2 come to the same conclusion. So, cost clearly isnt the motiviating factor, and if used as justification clearly isnt valid. This at least reduces the argument to a moral or humanistic one. Revenge IMHO should play no part in a justice system. After all, an eye for an eye leaves us all blind. If life incarceration is perceived as a more harsh punishment by the exponents of the death penalty, its easy to make a logical argument that it is a more fitting punishment for the most severe crimes.

[Andir]

Genuine life imprisonment is government sanctioned murder as much as any lethal injection

This is a key point for me.  If you are going to remove them from society until their natural death... you may as well have given them the death sentence.  This difference though, I think falls to the Holistic side of reasoning.

[Leafsnail]

I'd say a key difference is that you can apologise to and pardon a wrongfully convicted person in a way you can't do for a wrongfully executed person.  Although I suppose killing a person is a pretty effective way to silence them and prevent the fact that they were wrongfully punished from ever coming to light...

[kaijyuu]

Likewise, there are cases where a person who may be reformable commits a crime so atrocious that society simply cannot accept them trying to reintegrate - a guy I know of through my family who, an otherwise ordinary person, got liquored up one night and killed four people in a crime of passion.

The problem I have here is that one person is being punished due to a nebulous "society's" inability to cope. If this person truly no longer a threat to those around him/her, then any remaining crime lies on the heads of those unable to forgive and forget. So instead of admonishing those with prejudice and hate, we lock someone up to "protect" them?

I don't like the idea at all.

It's cases like these that I advocate execution for, because I honestly believe it's a more humane choice than leaving a prisoner to linger in a cell for however many decades it takes before they die in state custody anyway.  Genuine life imprisonment is government sanctioned murder as much as any lethal injection, and there are some prisoners for whom returning to society, for one reason or another, just is not an option.

In cases where rehabilitation is deemed impossible (due to the criminal being "irredeemable" (which I think is impossible) or the limits of our knowledge of psychology*), then I advocate life imprisonment with the option of euthanasia. I think I already discussed this a bit in this thread, but for those that think life imprisonment is a fate worse than death, I think the convicted has the right to determine for themselves if it really is or not.


*This is ignoring the question of, if we really could "rewire" these people to be productive members of society, should we? Would it be ethical to? Something a science fiction writer should explore (and probably has, somewhere).

[MonkeyHead]

Of course, the euthanasia option (where the individual in question makes a concious choice to administer the treatment themselves) should really only be open to those that have been judged to be of "sound mind", and so are making an objective choice, not one thier inner demons are making for them. Of course, I have no idea how you could implement such a system in a fair and even handed manner.

[Nadaka]

Another thing to consider is that for the irredeemable, they pose a threat in prison to those who are being reformed, unless they are kept in solitary isolation until they go insane from that torture and kill themselves.

Kaijyuu: on the sci-fi of rewiring a criminal: Babylon 5 season 3 "Passing Through Gethsemane"

[Virex]

Of course, the euthanasia option (where the individual in question makes a concious choice to administer the treatment themselves) should really only be open to those that have been judged to be of "sound mind", and so are making an objective choice, not one thier inner demons are making for them. Of course, I have no idea how you could implement such a system in a fair and even handed manner.

Those that can be considered to be of sound mind aren't those that would be eligible for euthanasia.

[MonkeyHead]

I would disagree - there are rational people that commit irrational acts.

[Virex]

I would disagree - there are rational people that commit irrational acts.

Yes, but they are "fixable" and therefor by the definitions used in the discussion they should not be incarcerated indefinitely. I would go as far as to say that if you were to draw the argument that the justice system should solely be focused on rehabilitation, then those that committed for example a crime passionel should not be detained but instead given anger management courses. After all, those that commit a crime passionel are very unlikely to become repeated offenders and are in all respect as normal as anyone with ADHD.

[kaijyuu]

And now we're back to Vector's fear of killing the mentally ill. Not so much a slippery slope anymore


For that I can say I honestly don't know. Something I'll have to think about.

I would disagree - there are rational people that commit irrational acts.

Yes, but they are "fixable" and therefor by the definitions used in the discussion they should not be incarcerated indefinitely. I would go as far as to say that if you were to draw the argument that the justice system should solely be focused on rehabilitation, then those that committed for example a crime passionel should not be detained but instead given anger management courses. After all, those that commit a crime passionel are very unlikely to become repeated offenders and are in all respect as normal as anyone with ADHD.

This depends on whether you define sociopathy and sadism as illnesses, and not just personality traits. A sociopath or sadist can have plenty of reason to harm those around them, and thus be in the position to make said choice about euthanasia, without being "mentally ill."

[MonkeyHead]

Sorry if this comes across as pedantic - it isnt my intention at all.

"Fixable" isnt the same as "Will be fixed", simply that the potential for it exists. Individuals may either not want to engange and work with the rehabilitaion offered for whatever reason, or not fancy a 20 year (or longer - the "fixability" of an individual shouldnt really be a factor when considering sentence length IMHO) stretch in the unpleasant prison environment. Execution is to me morally unjustified. Allowing an individual to decide on thier fate seems less objectionable to me, if the individual in question is capable of making an objective decision.

[Frumple]

Of course, the euthanasia option (where the individual in question makes a concious choice to administer the treatment themselves) should really only be open to those that have been judged to be of "sound mind", and so are making an objective choice, not one thier inner demons are making for them. Of course, I have no idea how you could implement such a system in a fair and even handed manner.

There's also the case where innocents would take this option as well. Suicide in the face of false accusations happens more often than is comforting. Even if you're innocent, the stigma of being accused lingers long and painfully. There's also the fact that rehabilitated criminals are basically screwed when it comes to a potential future. It's not unknown (though I certainly don't know the numbers for it) for a released criminal to get themselves jailed again simply because they can't manage to survive outside the prison system. Society is incredibly hostile to "ex-cons."

That'd be an issue that would have to be addressed alongside the rehabilitation, but it's arguably an even larger and more difficult one to address

Those that can be considered to be of sound mind aren't those that would be eligible for euthanasia.

Not necessarily: Re: Aquizzar's passion murder. I've actually known someone in a similar situation (life imprisonment for murder under the influence), who was entirely of sound mind when sober. There's equivalent situations. Sometimes, especially (but not limited to) when substance abuse is involved, it's incredible dangerous to 'fix' the problem and let the person free -- it only takes one slip up, one mistake, and people are dead or worse as a results.

*This is ignoring the question of, if we really could "rewire" these people to be productive members of society, should we? Would it be ethical to? Something a science fiction writer should explore (and probably has, somewhere).

It's been explored -- not just in science fiction -- yeah, and comes up fairly often. Hell, it was a fluff point in Starcraft -- most of the marine troops on the Terran side are criminals turned into cannon fodder. This, however, is a slippery slop from hell a thousandfold worse than the death penalty.

The simple question is simple: If you can do this to criminals, why not everyone? What's stopping you once you've "rewired" a sufficient portion of the population to simply go on and do the rest? This sort of technology is absolutely terrifying, for all that it could have tremendous beneficial effects. In one fell swoop, you could eliminate all the little niggling side factors of your society and transform the whole thing into 40 hour work-week nuclear heterosexual <insert religion> families, quietly sending every other child into your military (assuming you haven't gotten your hands on the brains of all the other societies, and now control the world).

It's pretty easy to see why that sort of thing would be troubling to a progressively inclined individual.

[RedKing]

Not to derail a rousing thread about capital punishment, but I feel the need to point out that my beloved state now has a constitutional amendment on the ballot for next May, to "define marriage as between a man and a woman." Not that gay marriage is legal here to begin with, but the state GOPpers want to 'insulate' the state against any kind of judicial challenges. Up until now, we had been the last remaining Southeastern state without one of these. I was proud of that, because North Carolina has always been "the California of the South" -- far more progressive than our Dixie cousins. No longer. I sadly expect this to pass in May, because the primary will be heavy on Republican turnout, less so in an uncontested Democratic Presidential race.

Just another sad step in our state legislature's plan to turn us into a copy of South Carolina, I fear. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they reintroduced the Confederate Battle Flag over the State Capitol. 

[MonkeyHead]

There's also the case where innocents would take this option as well. Suicide in the face of false accusations happens more often than is comforting. Even if you're innocent, the stigma of being accused lingers long and painfully.

Yea, this had crossed my mind. Its an unpleasant situation. Similar to the execution of innocents problem, the only way around it seems to be having no death penalty/optional suicide, but instead to be constantly reveiwing cases just incase you go it wrong at the original trial... this is "unelegant" and clunky in the extreme, if you will pardon the questionable language used - I am a physicist, not a linguist!