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.
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.
And one day, the President's plane might go down over one of them.