... 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.
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.