I've come to the realization that there's an angle to capital punishment that never comes up. For most of Western history incarceration simply did not exist. Punishment was corporal or capital* (heh, literally "body or head"). I suppose exile was a third option, but it was usually commutation of capital punishment. For minor offences such as fighting or petty theft you were beaten or put in the stocks or faced something something similar. For crimes against the lives (or property, if of sufficient value) of people you were executed. Armed robbery or assault with a weapon, for instance, has been a capital offence in most times and places.
Now a common argument against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to anybody. Of course its not! We only use it for the most heinous of crimes; in many places 1st degree murder is far more likely to yield a life sentence unless your particular case was especially vile. But here's the thing, outside crimes of passion, most murderers have a long list of priors, many of which would have had you in a noose prior to the 19th century. If armed robbery was a capitol offence, a whole lot of folks wouldn't live long enough to commit homicide.
What if the proper use of capital punishment actually requires us to apply it more broadly? "What about accidentally convicting innocent people?" you ask. Well, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is 1) a ratio and 2) set at one in ten rather than one in a million.
I distrust the government to do the killing and determining of guilt.
How about this. The Why Gary Why solution. If a suspect is found guilty of a capital crime, the state cannot kill them. But the victims will not be charged for any retaliatory justice they take (within reason of course) It's fine to walk up and shoot them in the head in 5th avenue and as long as they don't hurt anyone else that's legal, but going full law abiding citizen on them is too far and a crime.
But that doesn’t solve the real thing you said you distrust, does it? The government is presumably still determining guilt through trial, it’s just that they’ve outsourced carrying out the sentence.
Is it? Since the task passing of the death sentence is in the exact same process, it doesn’t change the odds of an incorrect conviction at all. All it does is add uncertainty as to whether that sentence will be carried out, which is a big problem if you get family members like Mollie Tibbetts’ dad. Or in the case of any criminal capable of hiding from or protecting himself from the family members.
I've come to the realization that there's an angle to capital punishment that never comes up. For most of Western history incarceration simply did not exist. Punishment was corporal or capital* (heh, literally "body or head"). I suppose exile was a third option, but it was usually commutation of capital punishment. For minor offences such as fighting or petty theft you were beaten or put in the stocks or faced something something similar. For crimes against the lives (or property, if of sufficient value) of people you were executed. Armed robbery or assault with a weapon, for instance, has been a capital offence in most times and places.
Now a common argument against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to anybody. Of course its not! We only use it for the most heinous of crimes; in many places 1st degree murder is far more likely to yield a life sentence unless your particular case was especially vile. But here's the thing, outside crimes of passion, most murderers have a long list of priors, many of which would have had you in a noose prior to the 19th century. If armed robbery was a capitol offence, a whole lot of folks wouldn't live long enough to commit homicide.
What if the proper use of capital punishment actually requires us to apply it more broadly? "What about accidentally convicting innocent people?" you ask. Well, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is 1) a ratio and 2) set at one in ten rather than one in a million.
I distrust the government to do the killing and determining of guilt.
How about this. The Why Gary Why solution. If a suspect is found guilty of a capital crime, the state cannot kill them. But the victims will not be charged for any retaliatory justice they take (within reason of course) It's fine to walk up and shoot them in the head in 5th avenue and as long as they don't hurt anyone else that's legal, but going full law abiding citizen on them is too far and a crime.
But that doesn’t solve the real thing you said you distrust, does it? The government is presumably still determining guilt through trial, it’s just that they’ve outsourced carrying out the sentence.
No but it's an improvement.
Is it? Since the task passing of the death sentence is in the exact same process, it doesn’t change the odds of an incorrect conviction at all. All it does is add uncertainty as to whether that sentence will be carried out, which is a big problem if you get family members like Mollie Tibbetts’ dad. Or in the case of any criminal capable of hiding from or protecting himself from the family members.