I may or may not be in the minority here, but I oppose the death penalty. I'd rather just have a prison system that works; lock these fucks up for life, stop letting out the most violent bastards to victimize again. Death penalty is largely pointless; the criminals who would get it are either too low IQ to even contemplate the consequences (and so won't be deterred, and keeping them in prison for life has the same outcome as killing them), or too insane to consider the consequences. I just don't like the idea of a system that may occasionally execute innocent men, but doesn't seem to provide any actual benefit as far as deterrents go.
Also, as a recovering lolbertarian, I just don't think the governments should have that final authority over our very lives. It's too much, and it's too permanent. At least if they lock up an innocent, they can eventually be freed. I just don't trust our "justice" system to fairly administrate...well, anything. Furthermore, think about how our current system is set up, and how entrenched things like affirmative action. They'd basically be waiving the death penalty for nonwhites, trannies, and the like anyway.
So, yeah, I don't care how heinous someone acted, I don't think the state should be able to kill them. Just lock these monster up forever. Same outcome for society, less opportunity for abuse or tyranny.
I used to agree with your position but have since reconsidered. My current view is that the use of the death penalty is far too limited. Let me explain why. For my entire life the death penalty has been only used for various forms of murder, and aa such it's easy to view executing someone as closing the barn after the horses have run. This is not how societies have used capital punishment for most of history. There is a well know principle among beat cops that a stick-up man WILL eventually shoot, and probably, kill someone. We don't do life sentences for a criminal who points a gun at a store clerk and if we did it would be decried as unjust. But people who do behave this way are going to eventually kill someone after they do a stint for armed robbery and go back to their usual ways. This is why societies have usually hung brigands and horse thieves.
As to the power of the state, if it is going to prohibit polite society from taking out the trash on its own, it has to shoulder the responsibility. An unfortunate tradeoff for those who wish limit the power of the state, but one that has to be made or you wind up like San Franisco will legalized brigandry (by people who WILL eventually take a life over $20).
EDIT: As for the risk of executing the innocent, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is a ratio, and why he put it at about 10 to 1 and not 10,000,000 to 1.
I get what you're saying, and do agree with some of it, but I don't agree with the conclusion. It's not either or between "legalized brigandry" and death penalty.
Also, are you saying you want to kill convicted armed robbers, and that would be fine, but it wouldn't be fine to lock them up for life, or long stretches until they're older? You can absolutely believe in law and order, without believing in the death penalty. I do want harsher penalties for plenty of crimes, including your example of armed robbery. But I don't think it should reach the death penalty. We could, just off the top of my head, lock armed robbers up for 10-20 years, with an additional five years of closely monitored probation or something. If they offend again, lock them up for life.
If we're going to have a death penalty, I think it should be reserved for specific professions or sectors; basically politicians, perhaps military or police. People who have disproportionate control over the lives of others. Treason having the death penalty just feels right. But even that is open to abuse, considering it would to some extent be politicians policing themselves. It would either never be applied, as they wouldn't want to set the precedent of killing each other, or could be abused to take out political opponents.
But, basically, I think in almost or all situations, longer jail times could serve as well or better than the death penalty. We just need to stop letting out the tiny percent of the population who repeatedly commit violent crime, or even repeatedly commit smaller crimes. Liberals freaked out about a "three strike" law, but it's along the right lines. Heck, with how bastardized our current system is, a fucking ten or twenty strike law would already drastically clean up society. Maybe a two or three strike rule if even one is violent, and like a five or six strike rule for higher level but nonviolent crimes, and the latter wouldn't even by life, just a significantly increased sentence.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment. I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical. We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight. We would need prisons the size of small cities.
If they offend again, lock them up for life.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
I don't even agree. I agree that they're likely to kill eventually, and I certainly agree they should be taken off the streets before they can do that, but plenty of these fuckers commit armed robberies many times without/before killing anyone. Also, hopefully with their probation they get busted for something more minor/stupid before jumping right back into armed robbery.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment.
I don't see how, if you think death penalty is "practical," long prisons sentences wouldn't be considered such. It seems a perfectly fine alternative to me, and much less ripe for abuse.
I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical.
Violent criminals are a small percentage of the overall population, the issue is they keep being let out to reoffend, as well as spread their degenerate mindsets to their communities. Lock the worst offenders up for long periods, society will improve. If we ever get a sensible justice system, and things don't improve, then maybe we can talk about taking things further.
Also, you seem to acknowledge there are a lot of these fuckers. Is killing huge numbers of criminals really more practical than jailing them? Even just optically, that seems pretty monstrous. To scale, and optically, locking this number of people up seems much better than killing them. If we're going to kill people in large numbers, innocent people will be caught up in that, guaranteed.
We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight.
Not to the degree we are now, but we certainly need to stop letting these fucks out.
We would need prisons the size of small cities.
Sounds based, let's go. We could just go full Escape from New York/LA and turn parts of CA and NY into prison colonies.
This has reminded me to read up on the history of incarceration. Interestingly, I think you and I are having a very old conversation. The very idea of holding people for any amount of time for their crimes is fairly modern. Usually, punishment was meted out based on some sort of capital-corporal dichotomy. Steal someone's purse? You go to the scaffold. Beat your wife? You go to the stocks for a day or two. I know that Kings and Lords may have held a few in literal dungeons, but this was not a society wide system.
Then in the 18th century, progressives (or social reformers as we used to call them) decided that incarceration could cover some of the lesser capital crimes and some of the greater non-capital crimes. It should be noted that from the very beginning the idea behind incarceration was rehabilitation, not separating dangerous people from society. Long and life sentences came about as a sort of stopgap measure.
I should stop here because, like I said, I need to do more reading on this subject to say anything intelligent.
Alright, this is a really good point. And I'm certainly more likely to be convinced in regards to corporal punishment that capital punishment, although many of the same problems remain. The people who would be scared by corporal punishment are, by and large at least, the people who don't need it; they'll behave relatively well regardless. The people who deserve corporal punishment won't be dissuaded by it.
The core problem is the criminal mindset. These people are basically retarded, and incapable of integrating into a sane society. So you have to take them out, one way or another. I personally prefer incarceration, as I think state-enforced death is too violative of rights and freedoms, and too permanent if it hits innocents.
It's very interesting to think about, though, that I may be trapped in the current framing, and trying to make an, as you say, "stopgap measure" work in ways it might not really work. I still think it may be the most feasible and humane solution, although it is certainly worth looking into more.
It's certainly a tricky question, as these sorts of people are so fucked in their thinking it's hard to figure out what to do with them. But continually letting them into society to reoffend certainly isn't the answer. Again, the issue is it's basically impossible to rehabilitate a large swath of the violent criminals. So what do you do with them?
I'll jump back in really quick to say I enjoyed our exchange and I disagree with others who are arguing with you that capital punishment needs to exist for the sake of retribution. I think that's a really bad justification.
I didn't continue our thread because I felt we reached an impasse, in a good way. We would have had to move on to harder questions like the value of a life and human dignity. Good topics to discuss, but honestly, I wasn't really up to it.
If you're into or interested in moral theory and/or the question of human dignity, this is a controversial lecture by Alasdair MacIntyre who is considered one of the preeminent moral theorists of the 20th century (https://youtu.be/q57wxXziKeQ). Getting into moral theory is pretty challenging because, once you move past "what seems fair", shit gets really hard really fast. Still learning myself.
I think you and u/bartbertbirtbortburt have had a very interesting discussion, but I’m surprised to see neither of you have explicitly brought up the cost of incarceration versus capital punishment (though “practicality” has been mentioned).
Additionally, I think there is a purpose of our “justice” system which almost never gets mentioned out loud: the loved ones of victims must feel generally content with the “system”, or else outbreaks of vigilantism occur (which the state obviously abhors due to it challenging their fundamental existence as a monopoly on force).
Well, first off, u/Kienan 's ideas are far more workable as things stand right now. Just change the law to increase sentence length and eliminate parole. Legally speaking it's pretty straight forward. As far as costs, I don't know if it's true, but organizations that oppose capital punishment claim its more expensive (legal costs associated with numerous appeals?).
My "hang the bastards" approach would require significant overhaul of the legal system.
... a very interesting discussion, but I’m surprised to see neither of you have explicitly brought up the cost of incarceration versus capital punishment (though “practicality” has been mentioned).
I agree it's been an interesting discussion, and as to cost, I didn't bring it up for a few reasons. I think it's, at least to some extent, irrelevant when you're talking about human lives and deaths. I think keeping the dregs of society from ruining society is one of the best things we can spend money on. I'm personally in favor of lowering taxes, but I think there's plenty of ways to cut the bloat while still incarcerating people. The other issue is, there's so much propaganda on both sides. Some people claim it's more expensive to kill people, others claim that's just due to inefficiencies in the system.
It's hard to say exact costs, or how much would be required to make sure the death penalty isn't being applied incorrectly. I can certainly see an argument for execution being cheaper than incarceration, but I think there are also ways to offset incarceration such as, within limits, putting convicts to work. Basically, I think there are just too many variables to argue about cost, and I think it gets overshadowed by the literal life and death stakes regardless.
Additionally, I think there is a purpose of our “justice” system which almost never gets mentioned out loud: the loved ones of victims must feel generally content with the “system”, or else outbreaks of vigilantism occur (which the state obviously abhors due to it challenging their fundamental existence as a monopoly on force).
I said in another comment that I don't want a vengeance system. The harm has already been done, I don't want 'cruel or unusual punishment' done to the perpetrators, for the exact same reasons I'm against torture. They're already caught, they can't defend themselves. If some scumbag gets killed in the perpetration of a heinous crime, I won't shed any tears, but after they're caught, they are in the care of the state, and I think that shifts some of the responsibility to the state. They're no longer free agents, treating them badly (no matter what they've done) seems unnecessary.
I want the monsters kept out of society. I don't think "punishment" really works as, as mentioned, the big issue is criminal mindset. The type of people who do the really bad things are completely operating on a different level. They barely have agency, which is certainly not to absolve them of any responsibility.
And, it might not sound great, but I don't really care if the victims feel content, as some just are out for vengeance. Perhaps it's me pushing my own beliefs in an unfair way, and I've admittedly never been or had people I know victimized in such brutal fashions, but I think catching the perpetrator and making sure they can't do it again is the best option. Anything else is, in my opinion, overkill, and I don't view it as justice to do it just because victims might feel better. The one thing I will say to the other side of the argument is, in our current revolving door system, I can certainly see how killing the scumbag would legitimately make the victims feel better. But in the system I propose, the fear of said scumbag being let out to reoffend would be massively diminished, since the revolving door would be largely locked. You can't really stop crime before it happens, my personal view is just make sure the perpetrators can't do it again. That's my primary concern. Again, I think the system has a duty to treat even the worst monsters humanely once they're in the system's care, yet make sure they can't do further harm.
With regards to cost I think I would make an analogy to healthcare: even with the “platinum plan”/“socialized healthcare” it’s not like any treatment is covered, and principles of triage are constantly applied right? Which I would use to conclude that “no, we shouldn’t be willing to spend an infinite amount of money on incarceration”. I think more often than we might realize, “life or death decisions” are coming down to dollar values (not to at all make the case this is an ideal system, I just wouldn’t know where to begin in a discussion of the “ideal” system). I hope you see where I’m coming from with the analogy without getting to deep into it, but basically (social/physical) illness and (judicial/medical) treatment. I’m thinking of the justice system as almost the immune system of the body-politic.
And to the second point, about the ever-looming danger of the return to vigilantism, I would just point to the history of America where we see what “justice” looks like in places where the populace don’t feel like the system is serving its supposed purpose (wild west posse justice, lynchings, etc). Again I’m not claiming this is in any way ideal, just something I see as an almost unacknowledged requirement of any “justice” system. If people were confident in the systems ability to actually rehabilitate, I don’t think most people would mind the end of capital punishment.
Frankly I grew up opposed to it, but have since come to admit “I’m not sure”. It seems to me justified in some cases, but (like you, it seems) I have next to no faith in the groups who are trusted with determining if an action is “justified”.
Not taking shots at you, but a few people have mentioned rehabilitation now, when it's never something I mentioned. In fact, I ended my first comment with "Just lock these monster [sic] up forever." The type of offender I'm talking about probably can't be rehabilitated 99% of the time. I just don't think we should kill them, on the basis that it isn't a perfect system, and could end up killing wrongly convicted. That's basically it. Limit the state's power, to protect us, not the criminals. Have a basic tenant that the state can't kill convicts (aside from in very fringe cases of self defense, of course, like in a jailbreak or the like.) Have a basic respect for all life, including the monsters. Just make sure that, once caught, they live that life where they can be controlled, and can't hurt others.
As to vigilantism, I don't think it would be an issue if the justice system actually kept those likely to reoffend from accessing new victims. I don't think simply not executing the worst convicts, but also not letting them out, would lead to that. Look, we're not currently in a state of mass vigilantism, when by all rights (not advocating, just observing, dear mods) we should be. Improving the system by not letting violent offenders out so frequently, is not likely to cause mass vigilantism. We already barely use the death penalty, and the justice system is a revolving door. Very low levels of vigilantism. People don't give a damn. Again, improving the system - even if not in the direction some people might want - is not going to break society.
Life sentences without the possibility of parole/“rehabilitation” just sounds like a more expensive and chronologically delayed means of execution, to me and at first thought... Though I suppose one precludes the possibility of some later, miraculous exoneration (I only say miraculous because when the system functions properly people are afforded the possibility of exoneration through the appeals process, pardons, etc).
Let’s assume the “unjustly incarcerated” person in your example simply lives out a life sentence in prison, is that actually any better than the execution? I can see it both ways to be honest.
If you got to choose between being executed, and spending your life in prison (with or without a slim chance of being exonerated and freed), which would you pick?
And I'm not arguing for life in every instance. Some would deserve life, others would just get much heftier sentences than they currently doing, with significantly more stringent parole conditions, if applicable.
Life sentences without the possibility of parole/“rehabilitation” just sounds like a more expensive and chronologically delayed means of execution, to me and at first thought... Though I suppose one precludes the possibility of some later, miraculous exoneration
Yeah, certainly not saying it's perfect. Life in prison is far from an ideal outcome, but I still think it's better because it somewhat limits state powers, while still keeping violent criminals away from you and me. But, yeah, the issue is messy, no matter how you slice it and, again, not saying my ideas are perfect by any means. Hell, I'll even say the opposite: My ideas are not perfect, and I totally acknowledge your critique.
Honestly, if I picked life in prison (because who can really know what they would pick), I think it would only be to attempt some Old Boy-esque decades of preparation + revengence scenario lmao
Hell, I'll even say the opposite: My ideas are not perfect, and I totally acknowledge your critique.
And if that person happens to be wrongly convicted?
It's going to cost something to execute people; you're still going to have to go through a lot of expensive procedures, especially if you want to limit collateral damage.
And, if we're really going to expand the death penalty like some people have suggested, the administrative process alone is going to balloon massively and likely exponentially, as we struggle to make sure we're only executing people who deserve it.
Also, while they're alive, they can in theory be put to work to partially offset that cost. It's not as simple as Prison V Bullet.
And if that person happens to be wrongly convicted?
people die of government/judiciary incompetence all the time, and no one cares. this focus on hypothetical wrongful convictions is extremely disingenuous. Especially when the discussion is usually around getting rid of biotrash caught in the act.
...this focus on hypothetical wrongful convictions is extremely disingenuous.
"insincere or calculating...pretending"
Way to jump in on a polite and interesting discussion that's been going on for a day. You do realize jumping out of the starting gate like this leaves very little room for meaningful response, right? Because you're 100% wrong about me and my motives, and there's no point in me engaging with you, aside from pointing out your utter internet weirdness. Peace.
i'm not attacking you, i said the argument is disingenuous, not the person . "muh wrongful conviction" is always the first argument to come up in any discussion about death penalty. People think its some kind of gotcha no one supporting the death penalty ever considered before. its tiring, its a bad argument, and the people who thought it up (which I assume you're not part of) were extremely disingenuous.
We all heard that "better 10 criminals walk free(and murder a couple dozen innocents) than an innocent man be sent to the gallows" crap a hundred times already.
You did say it was the focus on wrongful convictions that was disingenuous, so it seems anyone arguing that would be disingenuous. Anyway, my point stands, you saying my entire argument has no merit and can't be argued in good faith leaves nowhere for me to go. I'm not attacking you either for the record, just pointing out that I had great discussions with a bunch of people I disagreed with, and we looked at each side and tried to understand each other.
You're essentially saying, at best "you're wrong," and at worst "you're lying." I can't do much with that. Because I'm not lying, I obviously don't believe myself to be wrong, and it is a concern I hold, and a concern I think any justice system should take into account.
People think its some kind of gotcha
I also never used it as a gotcha, and just used it to explain parts of my position.
We all heard that "better 10 criminals walk free(and murder a couple dozen innocents) than an innocent man be sent to the gallows" crap a hundred times already.
And there's some truth to that argument; we don't want a justice system that abuses the innocent. That said, I consistently argued throughout my entire discussion that we need to stop letting criminals walk free. The point about the death penalty is I'd rather imprison innocent people - and hopefully eventually let them walk free - than potentially kill those innocents. I'm for a stricter stance on crime, I'm for criminals not walking free anywhere near as easily. I'm just not for the death penalty, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned, one of which is it would occasionally kill innocent people...and much more than occasionally if it was massively expanded.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. an imperfect judiciary can be either too cruel or too merciful. in the former case innocents sometimes get executed, in the latter innocents sometimes get murdered by people wrongfully released from prison. Both are equally the fault of the judiciary, but in the latter case, the state is almost never actually held responsible. In the former case, it is much easier to have the state accept fault and pay compensation.
suppose we lock them all up instead, theres no guarantee that some moron politician isnt going to try some "rehabilitation" crap down the line, voiding decades of social cleanup.
Then we could talk about the costs of locking people up, and how those resources could be used to save innocent lives too. by investing in healthcare for example.
Though I guess that part could be solved by using labor camps. somewhere on Mars.
again, all this getting hung up on maybe a couple people wrongly executed every decade is missing the forest for the trees. how many people died of the state's incompetence during covid? Wrongful executions wouldnt amount to a hundredth of that in a century.
If someone gets the death penalty, there's pretty damn clear evidence they did it these days. Video, catching them in the act, etc etc. For those people, take them out back and put them down. No reason to keep them alive.
In some cases, sure. In many others, not clear at all. Even when we know almost everything, it can be hard to say with absolute certainty. We still have straight up misidentifications, where they don't even get the right person. And it just gets more complicated if, as mentioned, the death penalty were to be expanded. We have enough issues executing a few people here and there, if we were to execute all armed robbers, murders, etc., it gets incredibly messy and expensive.
For those people, take them out back and put them down. No reason to keep them alive.
Not a reason to execute people, in my opinion. What's the reason to keep you alive, or me alive? Are we just going to let the state decide? That's the issue, I think we need a line. I think we can reach a compromise where we can keep that final lethal power from the state, while still making sure violent scum can't hurt the citizenry.
Who cares, many innocent people are killed by criminals every day. If one innocent person gets executed but it saves hundreds of other innocent people through deterrence then it's a net positive. Sharia dictates that a thieves arm must be amputated, how many innocent people lost their arms? Doesn't matter because countries with Sharia don't have theft problems now.
Who cares [if the government kills innocent people?]
I care. And I'm sure all the innocent people who get executed would care. And their families. And so on.
many innocent people are killed by criminals every day.
Indeed, and we should probably make sure they can't do that. Which my suggestions also do, without killing innocent people.
Sharia dictates that a thieves arm must be amputated, how many innocent people lost their arms? Doesn't matter because countries with Sharia don't have theft problems now.
I am still working through the nuances of my opinion, but I tend to agree we need more executions, not fewer.
The world is cruel and brutal... and I think we have lost our way a little bit in this modern world. Heinous crimes are no less common since we decided as a society to show mercy, and I generally don't think it turns out well when the state respects the life of those who don't respect others'.
But there are the obvious caveats that our justice system as it stands is broken and corrupt.
The world is cruel and brutal... and I think we have lost our way a little bit in this modern world.
Generally agree.
But there are the obvious caveats that our justice system as it stands is broken and corrupt.
Definitely agree.
Heinous crimes are no less common since we decided as a society to show mercy, and I generally don't think it turns out well when the state respects the life of those who don't respect others'.
I don't view it as mercy. As I've said elsewhere, I think we should demand the state value all life, to protect the wrongly convicted. Especially if we were going to expand the death penalty to other crimes like robbery. I want criminals to have basic rights, including not being executed by the state, because I also want those rights. I don't want the precedent that the state can kill certain people. Even if those people are monsters. We just need to also demand our system stop letting these monsters out to do it all again.
I'm actually only posting this story for one reason: the below quote.
The American Jewish Committee said that “what should always be top of mind is the memory” of the victims murdered by “a cold-blooded hater of Jews.”
“Ultimately what is of most significance is not how the shooter will spend the end of his life, but the fact that the U.S. government pursued this case with vigor and demonstrated that such crimes will not be countenanced, excused, or minimized,” it said.
Bowers’ case marked the first time federal prosecutors sought and won a death sentence under Biden’s administration. However, Bowers will not be executed while Biden remains in office.
Even got the WH to comment on it.
“While today’s unanimous decision by a federal jury in Pittsburgh is an important act of accountability, it will never bring back the eleven people who lost their lives or heal the grief and trauma of their loved ones,” White House principal deputy press secretary Olivia Dalton said, adding that Biden was “praying for the victims’ families, and for all those in the broader community who have been so deeply impacted by this tragedy.”
Read that highlighted quote carefully, because it is the first signs of OPEN politicization of the courts. They are now totally willing to admit that they are sending messages via court decisions.
That's something we haven't seen in a very, very long time.
I think the death penalty is just a nice way out for some people. And for others, life in a regular prison might not be too bad, maybe even enjoyable.
There are many fates worse than death, and some criminals are deserving of those dates.
I think 12-16 hours of forced hard labor, and maybe being used for medical experiments could benefit society a lot more than just executing them, or locking them up for decades.
In theory I agree. In practice, there are a lot of issues, including perverse economic incentives. Perhaps if the corporations who employed these people had to pay fair market wages, but it was put toward projects that benefit society, instead of to the laborers. Maybe a tax offset, too, or something. But I don't want criminals doing work law-abiding citizens could be doing, at a fraction of the cost. That's just going to be the causing some of the same issues as unchecked immigration, and elites love it.
...and maybe being used for medical experiments...
Absolutely not. Same issues as the death penalty; I don't agree the state should have that authority, and I'm concerned about the admittedly small proportion of innocent people who will get caught up in the system.
I believe in an actual justice system, not a vengeance or torture system. The number one goal of a justice system should be keeping people who harm others out of polite society. But I don't believe in violating their rights beyond incarceration. Lock the fuckers up, keep them locked up for a long time, but don't experiment on them and such. They don't need to be especially comfortable, but don't go out of the way to be cruel to them, either. Just keep them away from the rest of society.
Cruel and unusual punishment is a decent standard. However, retribution is a very important part of criminal justice. This is an uncomfortable truth, but it is iron clad. Any justice system that ignores this reality is inviting vigilantism, rebellion, and collapse.
The court system has ALWAYS been political. You're just seeing it now.
The courts have been illegitimate since Andrew Jackson made the grievous error of not having John Marshall hanged.
There's a big difference between defensible decisions made with bias and total recognition of decisions as some sort of deterrant.
Chauvin was close but they never flat out said that "other people should see this and know what will happen to them."
This is new.
Still Chauvin’s case is going to Supreme Court. Or an appeal. I hope he gets Justice
I may or may not be in the minority here, but I oppose the death penalty. I'd rather just have a prison system that works; lock these fucks up for life, stop letting out the most violent bastards to victimize again. Death penalty is largely pointless; the criminals who would get it are either too low IQ to even contemplate the consequences (and so won't be deterred, and keeping them in prison for life has the same outcome as killing them), or too insane to consider the consequences. I just don't like the idea of a system that may occasionally execute innocent men, but doesn't seem to provide any actual benefit as far as deterrents go.
Also, as a recovering lolbertarian, I just don't think the governments should have that final authority over our very lives. It's too much, and it's too permanent. At least if they lock up an innocent, they can eventually be freed. I just don't trust our "justice" system to fairly administrate...well, anything. Furthermore, think about how our current system is set up, and how entrenched things like affirmative action. They'd basically be waiving the death penalty for nonwhites, trannies, and the like anyway.
So, yeah, I don't care how heinous someone acted, I don't think the state should be able to kill them. Just lock these monster up forever. Same outcome for society, less opportunity for abuse or tyranny.
I used to agree with your position but have since reconsidered. My current view is that the use of the death penalty is far too limited. Let me explain why. For my entire life the death penalty has been only used for various forms of murder, and aa such it's easy to view executing someone as closing the barn after the horses have run. This is not how societies have used capital punishment for most of history. There is a well know principle among beat cops that a stick-up man WILL eventually shoot, and probably, kill someone. We don't do life sentences for a criminal who points a gun at a store clerk and if we did it would be decried as unjust. But people who do behave this way are going to eventually kill someone after they do a stint for armed robbery and go back to their usual ways. This is why societies have usually hung brigands and horse thieves.
As to the power of the state, if it is going to prohibit polite society from taking out the trash on its own, it has to shoulder the responsibility. An unfortunate tradeoff for those who wish limit the power of the state, but one that has to be made or you wind up like San Franisco will legalized brigandry (by people who WILL eventually take a life over $20).
EDIT: As for the risk of executing the innocent, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is a ratio, and why he put it at about 10 to 1 and not 10,000,000 to 1.
I get what you're saying, and do agree with some of it, but I don't agree with the conclusion. It's not either or between "legalized brigandry" and death penalty.
Also, are you saying you want to kill convicted armed robbers, and that would be fine, but it wouldn't be fine to lock them up for life, or long stretches until they're older? You can absolutely believe in law and order, without believing in the death penalty. I do want harsher penalties for plenty of crimes, including your example of armed robbery. But I don't think it should reach the death penalty. We could, just off the top of my head, lock armed robbers up for 10-20 years, with an additional five years of closely monitored probation or something. If they offend again, lock them up for life.
If we're going to have a death penalty, I think it should be reserved for specific professions or sectors; basically politicians, perhaps military or police. People who have disproportionate control over the lives of others. Treason having the death penalty just feels right. But even that is open to abuse, considering it would to some extent be politicians policing themselves. It would either never be applied, as they wouldn't want to set the precedent of killing each other, or could be abused to take out political opponents.
But, basically, I think in almost or all situations, longer jail times could serve as well or better than the death penalty. We just need to stop letting out the tiny percent of the population who repeatedly commit violent crime, or even repeatedly commit smaller crimes. Liberals freaked out about a "three strike" law, but it's along the right lines. Heck, with how bastardized our current system is, a fucking ten or twenty strike law would already drastically clean up society. Maybe a two or three strike rule if even one is violent, and like a five or six strike rule for higher level but nonviolent crimes, and the latter wouldn't even by life, just a significantly increased sentence.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment. I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical. We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight. We would need prisons the size of small cities.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
I don't even agree. I agree that they're likely to kill eventually, and I certainly agree they should be taken off the streets before they can do that, but plenty of these fuckers commit armed robberies many times without/before killing anyone. Also, hopefully with their probation they get busted for something more minor/stupid before jumping right back into armed robbery.
I don't see how, if you think death penalty is "practical," long prisons sentences wouldn't be considered such. It seems a perfectly fine alternative to me, and much less ripe for abuse.
Violent criminals are a small percentage of the overall population, the issue is they keep being let out to reoffend, as well as spread their degenerate mindsets to their communities. Lock the worst offenders up for long periods, society will improve. If we ever get a sensible justice system, and things don't improve, then maybe we can talk about taking things further.
Also, you seem to acknowledge there are a lot of these fuckers. Is killing huge numbers of criminals really more practical than jailing them? Even just optically, that seems pretty monstrous. To scale, and optically, locking this number of people up seems much better than killing them. If we're going to kill people in large numbers, innocent people will be caught up in that, guaranteed.
Not to the degree we are now, but we certainly need to stop letting these fucks out.
Sounds based, let's go. We could just go full Escape from New York/LA and turn parts of CA and NY into prison colonies.
This has reminded me to read up on the history of incarceration. Interestingly, I think you and I are having a very old conversation. The very idea of holding people for any amount of time for their crimes is fairly modern. Usually, punishment was meted out based on some sort of capital-corporal dichotomy. Steal someone's purse? You go to the scaffold. Beat your wife? You go to the stocks for a day or two. I know that Kings and Lords may have held a few in literal dungeons, but this was not a society wide system.
Then in the 18th century, progressives (or social reformers as we used to call them) decided that incarceration could cover some of the lesser capital crimes and some of the greater non-capital crimes. It should be noted that from the very beginning the idea behind incarceration was rehabilitation, not separating dangerous people from society. Long and life sentences came about as a sort of stopgap measure.
I should stop here because, like I said, I need to do more reading on this subject to say anything intelligent.
Alright, this is a really good point. And I'm certainly more likely to be convinced in regards to corporal punishment that capital punishment, although many of the same problems remain. The people who would be scared by corporal punishment are, by and large at least, the people who don't need it; they'll behave relatively well regardless. The people who deserve corporal punishment won't be dissuaded by it.
The core problem is the criminal mindset. These people are basically retarded, and incapable of integrating into a sane society. So you have to take them out, one way or another. I personally prefer incarceration, as I think state-enforced death is too violative of rights and freedoms, and too permanent if it hits innocents.
It's very interesting to think about, though, that I may be trapped in the current framing, and trying to make an, as you say, "stopgap measure" work in ways it might not really work. I still think it may be the most feasible and humane solution, although it is certainly worth looking into more.
It's certainly a tricky question, as these sorts of people are so fucked in their thinking it's hard to figure out what to do with them. But continually letting them into society to reoffend certainly isn't the answer. Again, the issue is it's basically impossible to rehabilitate a large swath of the violent criminals. So what do you do with them?
I'll jump back in really quick to say I enjoyed our exchange and I disagree with others who are arguing with you that capital punishment needs to exist for the sake of retribution. I think that's a really bad justification.
I didn't continue our thread because I felt we reached an impasse, in a good way. We would have had to move on to harder questions like the value of a life and human dignity. Good topics to discuss, but honestly, I wasn't really up to it.
If you're into or interested in moral theory and/or the question of human dignity, this is a controversial lecture by Alasdair MacIntyre who is considered one of the preeminent moral theorists of the 20th century (https://youtu.be/q57wxXziKeQ). Getting into moral theory is pretty challenging because, once you move past "what seems fair", shit gets really hard really fast. Still learning myself.
How about exile? Are there any good islands left? Preferably with animals the convicts could live off of (I’m thinking kangaroos here)
And one day, the President's plane might go down over one of them.
I think you and u/bartbertbirtbortburt have had a very interesting discussion, but I’m surprised to see neither of you have explicitly brought up the cost of incarceration versus capital punishment (though “practicality” has been mentioned).
Additionally, I think there is a purpose of our “justice” system which almost never gets mentioned out loud: the loved ones of victims must feel generally content with the “system”, or else outbreaks of vigilantism occur (which the state obviously abhors due to it challenging their fundamental existence as a monopoly on force).
They used to teach lawyers, correctly, that the primary purpose of the justice system is retribution.
Well, first off, u/Kienan 's ideas are far more workable as things stand right now. Just change the law to increase sentence length and eliminate parole. Legally speaking it's pretty straight forward. As far as costs, I don't know if it's true, but organizations that oppose capital punishment claim its more expensive (legal costs associated with numerous appeals?).
My "hang the bastards" approach would require significant overhaul of the legal system.
I agree it's been an interesting discussion, and as to cost, I didn't bring it up for a few reasons. I think it's, at least to some extent, irrelevant when you're talking about human lives and deaths. I think keeping the dregs of society from ruining society is one of the best things we can spend money on. I'm personally in favor of lowering taxes, but I think there's plenty of ways to cut the bloat while still incarcerating people. The other issue is, there's so much propaganda on both sides. Some people claim it's more expensive to kill people, others claim that's just due to inefficiencies in the system.
It's hard to say exact costs, or how much would be required to make sure the death penalty isn't being applied incorrectly. I can certainly see an argument for execution being cheaper than incarceration, but I think there are also ways to offset incarceration such as, within limits, putting convicts to work. Basically, I think there are just too many variables to argue about cost, and I think it gets overshadowed by the literal life and death stakes regardless.
I said in another comment that I don't want a vengeance system. The harm has already been done, I don't want 'cruel or unusual punishment' done to the perpetrators, for the exact same reasons I'm against torture. They're already caught, they can't defend themselves. If some scumbag gets killed in the perpetration of a heinous crime, I won't shed any tears, but after they're caught, they are in the care of the state, and I think that shifts some of the responsibility to the state. They're no longer free agents, treating them badly (no matter what they've done) seems unnecessary.
I want the monsters kept out of society. I don't think "punishment" really works as, as mentioned, the big issue is criminal mindset. The type of people who do the really bad things are completely operating on a different level. They barely have agency, which is certainly not to absolve them of any responsibility.
And, it might not sound great, but I don't really care if the victims feel content, as some just are out for vengeance. Perhaps it's me pushing my own beliefs in an unfair way, and I've admittedly never been or had people I know victimized in such brutal fashions, but I think catching the perpetrator and making sure they can't do it again is the best option. Anything else is, in my opinion, overkill, and I don't view it as justice to do it just because victims might feel better. The one thing I will say to the other side of the argument is, in our current revolving door system, I can certainly see how killing the scumbag would legitimately make the victims feel better. But in the system I propose, the fear of said scumbag being let out to reoffend would be massively diminished, since the revolving door would be largely locked. You can't really stop crime before it happens, my personal view is just make sure the perpetrators can't do it again. That's my primary concern. Again, I think the system has a duty to treat even the worst monsters humanely once they're in the system's care, yet make sure they can't do further harm.
Fair points all around.
With regards to cost I think I would make an analogy to healthcare: even with the “platinum plan”/“socialized healthcare” it’s not like any treatment is covered, and principles of triage are constantly applied right? Which I would use to conclude that “no, we shouldn’t be willing to spend an infinite amount of money on incarceration”. I think more often than we might realize, “life or death decisions” are coming down to dollar values (not to at all make the case this is an ideal system, I just wouldn’t know where to begin in a discussion of the “ideal” system). I hope you see where I’m coming from with the analogy without getting to deep into it, but basically (social/physical) illness and (judicial/medical) treatment. I’m thinking of the justice system as almost the immune system of the body-politic.
And to the second point, about the ever-looming danger of the return to vigilantism, I would just point to the history of America where we see what “justice” looks like in places where the populace don’t feel like the system is serving its supposed purpose (wild west posse justice, lynchings, etc). Again I’m not claiming this is in any way ideal, just something I see as an almost unacknowledged requirement of any “justice” system. If people were confident in the systems ability to actually rehabilitate, I don’t think most people would mind the end of capital punishment.
Frankly I grew up opposed to it, but have since come to admit “I’m not sure”. It seems to me justified in some cases, but (like you, it seems) I have next to no faith in the groups who are trusted with determining if an action is “justified”.
Not taking shots at you, but a few people have mentioned rehabilitation now, when it's never something I mentioned. In fact, I ended my first comment with "Just lock these monster [sic] up forever." The type of offender I'm talking about probably can't be rehabilitated 99% of the time. I just don't think we should kill them, on the basis that it isn't a perfect system, and could end up killing wrongly convicted. That's basically it. Limit the state's power, to protect us, not the criminals. Have a basic tenant that the state can't kill convicts (aside from in very fringe cases of self defense, of course, like in a jailbreak or the like.) Have a basic respect for all life, including the monsters. Just make sure that, once caught, they live that life where they can be controlled, and can't hurt others.
As to vigilantism, I don't think it would be an issue if the justice system actually kept those likely to reoffend from accessing new victims. I don't think simply not executing the worst convicts, but also not letting them out, would lead to that. Look, we're not currently in a state of mass vigilantism, when by all rights (not advocating, just observing, dear mods) we should be. Improving the system by not letting violent offenders out so frequently, is not likely to cause mass vigilantism. We already barely use the death penalty, and the justice system is a revolving door. Very low levels of vigilantism. People don't give a damn. Again, improving the system - even if not in the direction some people might want - is not going to break society.
Life sentences without the possibility of parole/“rehabilitation” just sounds like a more expensive and chronologically delayed means of execution, to me and at first thought... Though I suppose one precludes the possibility of some later, miraculous exoneration (I only say miraculous because when the system functions properly people are afforded the possibility of exoneration through the appeals process, pardons, etc).
Let’s assume the “unjustly incarcerated” person in your example simply lives out a life sentence in prison, is that actually any better than the execution? I can see it both ways to be honest.
If you got to choose between being executed, and spending your life in prison (with or without a slim chance of being exonerated and freed), which would you pick?
And I'm not arguing for life in every instance. Some would deserve life, others would just get much heftier sentences than they currently doing, with significantly more stringent parole conditions, if applicable.
Yeah, certainly not saying it's perfect. Life in prison is far from an ideal outcome, but I still think it's better because it somewhat limits state powers, while still keeping violent criminals away from you and me. But, yeah, the issue is messy, no matter how you slice it and, again, not saying my ideas are perfect by any means. Hell, I'll even say the opposite: My ideas are not perfect, and I totally acknowledge your critique.
Honestly, if I picked life in prison (because who can really know what they would pick), I think it would only be to attempt some Old Boy-esque decades of preparation + revengence scenario lmao
Likewise from me to you man, likewise
Life in jail: millions of dollars.
45 cal round to the back of the head? 40 cents.
I dunno. One seems more effective than the other.
And if that person happens to be wrongly convicted?
It's going to cost something to execute people; you're still going to have to go through a lot of expensive procedures, especially if you want to limit collateral damage.
And, if we're really going to expand the death penalty like some people have suggested, the administrative process alone is going to balloon massively and likely exponentially, as we struggle to make sure we're only executing people who deserve it.
Also, while they're alive, they can in theory be put to work to partially offset that cost. It's not as simple as Prison V Bullet.
people die of government/judiciary incompetence all the time, and no one cares. this focus on hypothetical wrongful convictions is extremely disingenuous. Especially when the discussion is usually around getting rid of biotrash caught in the act.
"insincere or calculating...pretending"
Way to jump in on a polite and interesting discussion that's been going on for a day. You do realize jumping out of the starting gate like this leaves very little room for meaningful response, right? Because you're 100% wrong about me and my motives, and there's no point in me engaging with you, aside from pointing out your utter internet weirdness. Peace.
i'm not attacking you, i said the argument is disingenuous, not the person . "muh wrongful conviction" is always the first argument to come up in any discussion about death penalty. People think its some kind of gotcha no one supporting the death penalty ever considered before. its tiring, its a bad argument, and the people who thought it up (which I assume you're not part of) were extremely disingenuous.
We all heard that "better 10 criminals walk free(and murder a couple dozen innocents) than an innocent man be sent to the gallows" crap a hundred times already.
You did say it was the focus on wrongful convictions that was disingenuous, so it seems anyone arguing that would be disingenuous. Anyway, my point stands, you saying my entire argument has no merit and can't be argued in good faith leaves nowhere for me to go. I'm not attacking you either for the record, just pointing out that I had great discussions with a bunch of people I disagreed with, and we looked at each side and tried to understand each other.
You're essentially saying, at best "you're wrong," and at worst "you're lying." I can't do much with that. Because I'm not lying, I obviously don't believe myself to be wrong, and it is a concern I hold, and a concern I think any justice system should take into account.
I also never used it as a gotcha, and just used it to explain parts of my position.
And there's some truth to that argument; we don't want a justice system that abuses the innocent. That said, I consistently argued throughout my entire discussion that we need to stop letting criminals walk free. The point about the death penalty is I'd rather imprison innocent people - and hopefully eventually let them walk free - than potentially kill those innocents. I'm for a stricter stance on crime, I'm for criminals not walking free anywhere near as easily. I'm just not for the death penalty, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned, one of which is it would occasionally kill innocent people...and much more than occasionally if it was massively expanded.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. an imperfect judiciary can be either too cruel or too merciful. in the former case innocents sometimes get executed, in the latter innocents sometimes get murdered by people wrongfully released from prison. Both are equally the fault of the judiciary, but in the latter case, the state is almost never actually held responsible. In the former case, it is much easier to have the state accept fault and pay compensation.
suppose we lock them all up instead, theres no guarantee that some moron politician isnt going to try some "rehabilitation" crap down the line, voiding decades of social cleanup.
Then we could talk about the costs of locking people up, and how those resources could be used to save innocent lives too. by investing in healthcare for example.
Though I guess that part could be solved by using labor camps. somewhere on Mars.
again, all this getting hung up on maybe a couple people wrongly executed every decade is missing the forest for the trees. how many people died of the state's incompetence during covid? Wrongful executions wouldnt amount to a hundredth of that in a century.
If someone gets the death penalty, there's pretty damn clear evidence they did it these days. Video, catching them in the act, etc etc. For those people, take them out back and put them down. No reason to keep them alive.
In some cases, sure. In many others, not clear at all. Even when we know almost everything, it can be hard to say with absolute certainty. We still have straight up misidentifications, where they don't even get the right person. And it just gets more complicated if, as mentioned, the death penalty were to be expanded. We have enough issues executing a few people here and there, if we were to execute all armed robbers, murders, etc., it gets incredibly messy and expensive.
Not a reason to execute people, in my opinion. What's the reason to keep you alive, or me alive? Are we just going to let the state decide? That's the issue, I think we need a line. I think we can reach a compromise where we can keep that final lethal power from the state, while still making sure violent scum can't hurt the citizenry.
If you're a mass murderer who's not redeemable, why should you be kept alive?
Who cares, many innocent people are killed by criminals every day. If one innocent person gets executed but it saves hundreds of other innocent people through deterrence then it's a net positive. Sharia dictates that a thieves arm must be amputated, how many innocent people lost their arms? Doesn't matter because countries with Sharia don't have theft problems now.
I care. And I'm sure all the innocent people who get executed would care. And their families. And so on.
Indeed, and we should probably make sure they can't do that. Which my suggestions also do, without killing innocent people.
Hahahahaha.
I lived in Saudi Arabia. You could leave your bag in a cart and come back 2 days later and find nothing missing.
Ex-soviet steel-case shit was 20c a round last time I bought plinking .45, and that'll do just fine for a field-expedient frontal lobotomy.
Maybe prices have gone back up since I last checked.
Permanent incarceration is cruel and unusual punishment. Putting criminals to death is far more humane
I am still working through the nuances of my opinion, but I tend to agree we need more executions, not fewer.
The world is cruel and brutal... and I think we have lost our way a little bit in this modern world. Heinous crimes are no less common since we decided as a society to show mercy, and I generally don't think it turns out well when the state respects the life of those who don't respect others'.
But there are the obvious caveats that our justice system as it stands is broken and corrupt.
Generally agree.
Definitely agree.
I don't view it as mercy. As I've said elsewhere, I think we should demand the state value all life, to protect the wrongly convicted. Especially if we were going to expand the death penalty to other crimes like robbery. I want criminals to have basic rights, including not being executed by the state, because I also want those rights. I don't want the precedent that the state can kill certain people. Even if those people are monsters. We just need to also demand our system stop letting these monsters out to do it all again.
I generally agree with you here, too.
It's a complex issue I haven't had much time to think about with all the other more important shit going on for the past decade or so.
I'm actually only posting this story for one reason: the below quote.
Even got the WH to comment on it.
Read that highlighted quote carefully, because it is the first signs of OPEN politicization of the courts. They are now totally willing to admit that they are sending messages via court decisions.
That's something we haven't seen in a very, very long time.
January 20th 2025: "Trump still hasn't killed Robert Bower proving that he is a Nazi sympathiser!"
Plz gib lotto numb
I'm sure if this happened to 11 Christians in a Church that this would be equally as big of a deal and that the jews would be very sad about it.
I think the death penalty is just a nice way out for some people. And for others, life in a regular prison might not be too bad, maybe even enjoyable.
There are many fates worse than death, and some criminals are deserving of those dates.
I think 12-16 hours of forced hard labor, and maybe being used for medical experiments could benefit society a lot more than just executing them, or locking them up for decades.
In theory I agree. In practice, there are a lot of issues, including perverse economic incentives. Perhaps if the corporations who employed these people had to pay fair market wages, but it was put toward projects that benefit society, instead of to the laborers. Maybe a tax offset, too, or something. But I don't want criminals doing work law-abiding citizens could be doing, at a fraction of the cost. That's just going to be the causing some of the same issues as unchecked immigration, and elites love it.
Absolutely not. Same issues as the death penalty; I don't agree the state should have that authority, and I'm concerned about the admittedly small proportion of innocent people who will get caught up in the system.
I believe in an actual justice system, not a vengeance or torture system. The number one goal of a justice system should be keeping people who harm others out of polite society. But I don't believe in violating their rights beyond incarceration. Lock the fuckers up, keep them locked up for a long time, but don't experiment on them and such. They don't need to be especially comfortable, but don't go out of the way to be cruel to them, either. Just keep them away from the rest of society.
That's my take, anyway.
Cruel and unusual punishment is a decent standard. However, retribution is a very important part of criminal justice. This is an uncomfortable truth, but it is iron clad. Any justice system that ignores this reality is inviting vigilantism, rebellion, and collapse.