Capital punishment.
- Thread starter Wolf
- Start date
One benefit to execution of lifelong criminals, post-execution the risk of their recidivism drops to darn near zero.
BUT !!
That's a really slippery slope W #1. Reductio ad absurdum (follow the proposition to its logical extreme): suppose grampa's gotten kind of frail, in his 80's, maybe losing his faculties, hearing perhaps, and while granddaughter knows she'll get her inheritance sooner or later, she really reeaaalllyyyyyy wants rhinoplasty (a nose job).
There's more to it than that W, but I'll let that one grind in your craw a while.
See? You'd forgotten why you don't like me so well. Remember now?
ahdictionary.com
BUT !!
That's a really slippery slope W #1. Reductio ad absurdum (follow the proposition to its logical extreme): suppose grampa's gotten kind of frail, in his 80's, maybe losing his faculties, hearing perhaps, and while granddaughter knows she'll get her inheritance sooner or later, she really reeaaalllyyyyyy wants rhinoplasty (a nose job).
There's more to it than that W, but I'll let that one grind in your craw a while.
See? You'd forgotten why you don't like me so well. Remember now?
The American Heritage Dictionary entry: recidivate
The American Heritage Dictionary entry: recidivate
ahdictionary.com
Dealing with the one problem, that I foresee as to "putting down those that murder" is making sure they are guilty. But with the ability now of the Police having the technical skills they have at their disposal that's not really a problem in todays world.
However what again IMHO is important, we should 1. put down those that murder Children. 2. Those that kill while robbing someone.3. Those that Kill while assaulting Women. Just recently, we have a child killer who had served around 18 yrs for his killing of two children. It was thought he had "been cured". After just a few days he was caught "trailing a child". I know very little as to how you "cure" someone of their crimes, but I wonder if when a Dog, attacks and kills a person can one really say it would never again attack?
However what again IMHO is important, we should 1. put down those that murder Children. 2. Those that kill while robbing someone.3. Those that Kill while assaulting Women. Just recently, we have a child killer who had served around 18 yrs for his killing of two children. It was thought he had "been cured". After just a few days he was caught "trailing a child". I know very little as to how you "cure" someone of their crimes, but I wonder if when a Dog, attacks and kills a person can one really say it would never again attack?
TOTALLY !!!
The cliche' in the U.S., likely acquired in the U.S. from the U.K. as so many of U.S. best legal standards are ("British Common Law", a source much U.S. law is inspired by): - Better to let 10 guilty men go free than to falsely convict one innocent man. -
Matter of fact Illinois Gov. George Ryan was so alarmed at how many death row prisoners had been proved innocent * from his own State of Illinois that Ryan implemented a blanket stay of execution on all Illinois death row inmates surviving at that time. I suppose their sentence was changed to life imprisonment.
The irony is shortly after that Ryan himself went to prison on unrelated criminal charges.
* "The Innocence Project" is a non-profit dedicated to investigating dubious convictions, and where possible proving innocence of the convict. I believe TIP has successfully won the release of over 100 innocent convicts since TIP inception.
And yet again, we had a "Murderer" who has served 20 plus years so far but was put in what we describe as an "Open Prison". He went missing and again we had alert the Police force to catch him. In my mind not only a total waste of time by" keeping him locked up" but the cost, which again in my mind could be better spent of more important things and help.
I'm NOT recommending it W #5. It's a deeply disturbing movie. But if you've already seen it, Stan Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange takes a reductio ad absurdum look at how to handle society's worst violent criminals.
Unfortunately (Kubrick's point evidently), this is a severe problem we have not yet solved. And though we may have tried some additional approaches untried 60 years ago, it's not clear to me we're any closer to solving this problem.
Unfortunately (Kubrick's point evidently), this is a severe problem we have not yet solved. And though we may have tried some additional approaches untried 60 years ago, it's not clear to me we're any closer to solving this problem.
Sear, as I age, there are some things that seem to become clearer. I am not saying that it's the right way, to end a person life by official means, but the question I raise is spending funds on keeping someone alive in reasonable comfort while the funds could be better spent on the needy, plus ending a life that has caused an innocent life to be taken, seems justice to me. But would venture a thought that we are seeing more so called "treat them with respect, and they will change" type people around. who one wonders how they would react, if one close to them was taken. Food for thought.
W #7
Precise wording is necessary here, for my reply might otherwise be misunderstood to mean I favor feeding dangerous criminals to feeding starving orphans. That is most certainly NOT the case.
BUT !!
We're hardly a babe in the woods on this. There are some nations that have prisons with conditions that are deplorable. And there are other nations where prison conditions for murderers are more comfortable than some law abiding tax payers not enjoying free room & board at government expense. The statistics on which of these nations has the lower crime rate may only tell part of the story.
But I have read, in the U.S., it's cheaper to warehouse a dangerous felon for life than to execute him, because:
a) Until the prisoner has exhausted his appeals process, a process that may take decades, he's receiving food, clothing, & shelter from government anyway. And
b) paying lawyers to both prosecute, and defend the criminal convict is more expensive than life imprisonment.
SO !
You and I might agree that we should choose the lowest cost option, so that only the minimum of resources are wasted on such criminals. BUT !! That may mean life in prison in most cases, the $cheaper way out.
Precise wording is necessary here, for my reply might otherwise be misunderstood to mean I favor feeding dangerous criminals to feeding starving orphans. That is most certainly NOT the case.
BUT !!
We're hardly a babe in the woods on this. There are some nations that have prisons with conditions that are deplorable. And there are other nations where prison conditions for murderers are more comfortable than some law abiding tax payers not enjoying free room & board at government expense. The statistics on which of these nations has the lower crime rate may only tell part of the story.
But I have read, in the U.S., it's cheaper to warehouse a dangerous felon for life than to execute him, because:
a) Until the prisoner has exhausted his appeals process, a process that may take decades, he's receiving food, clothing, & shelter from government anyway. And
b) paying lawyers to both prosecute, and defend the criminal convict is more expensive than life imprisonment.
SO !
You and I might agree that we should choose the lowest cost option, so that only the minimum of resources are wasted on such criminals. BUT !! That may mean life in prison in most cases, the $cheaper way out.
Until the prisoner has exhausted his appeals process, a process that may take decades, he's receiving food, clothing, & shelter from government anyway. And
b) paying lawyers to both prosecute, and defend the criminal convict is more expensive than life imprisonment. Sear
And that really sums up IMHO the problem. We (most of the West) have given "rights" which some are using to in this possibility to extend their existence. So if the Death penalty was to be re-introduced, we would need to "slim down" possible appeals. I posted before that the ability of Court's to gain near 99.9% certainty as to "you did the deed" is with us. Again in my view, we need to totally over view how we convict, and speed up the process.
b) paying lawyers to both prosecute, and defend the criminal convict is more expensive than life imprisonment. Sear
And that really sums up IMHO the problem. We (most of the West) have given "rights" which some are using to in this possibility to extend their existence. So if the Death penalty was to be re-introduced, we would need to "slim down" possible appeals. I posted before that the ability of Court's to gain near 99.9% certainty as to "you did the deed" is with us. Again in my view, we need to totally over view how we convict, and speed up the process.
W #9
That's the kicker. We're not intentionally lavishing all the $love on the criminals. Instead we're exercising abundant caution to spare innocent victims the hardship.
Not sure if you know about the U.S.' "The Innocence Project". I don't know the whole story, but basically it's a group of people, many of whom may be law school students, who investigate some convictions looking for errors etc. IIRC they've already PROVED over 100 inmates innocent, and gotten them released from long term prison or death row.
Not trying to rub salt in your wound here W. You and I agree about the appearance of waste. But with a track record like The Innocence Project, it raises questions about not whether we're spending too much, but instead perhaps not enough.
I personally have seen corruption in the criminal justice system. It's never pretty. But when human life is on the line, it's totally an issue.
That's the kicker. We're not intentionally lavishing all the $love on the criminals. Instead we're exercising abundant caution to spare innocent victims the hardship.
Not sure if you know about the U.S.' "The Innocence Project". I don't know the whole story, but basically it's a group of people, many of whom may be law school students, who investigate some convictions looking for errors etc. IIRC they've already PROVED over 100 inmates innocent, and gotten them released from long term prison or death row.
Not trying to rub salt in your wound here W. You and I agree about the appearance of waste. But with a track record like The Innocence Project, it raises questions about not whether we're spending too much, but instead perhaps not enough.
I personally have seen corruption in the criminal justice system. It's never pretty. But when human life is on the line, it's totally an issue.
Today I read, a report about a "person" seriously injuring people while travelling in a Train in New York. I read that they are hunting a man who has issues with leader of New York so decided "I will make him pay" by shooting and gassing those on the train. Now I see that a number of people have been injured and will suffer greatly, while once the person who caused the suffering is caught will be given a trail "fed watered and be allowed to live in reasonable comfort" while his victims still suffer.
I do accept we need a Justice and Law and order, but-------------------
I do accept we need a Justice and Law and order, but-------------------
I understand he had a "grievance" with the Mayor of New York. He has been caught and we have to await answers. But it does show that once may be long ago when we would "air" our grievance's in a less Physical way those days have come to an end and now "we take arms against a sea of troubles".
But I wonder if the real threat of ending your life if you do "step" into physical remedy, would dissuade.
But I wonder if the real threat of ending your life if you do "step" into physical remedy, would dissuade.
Recently elected NYC Mayor Eric Adams was an NYC COP, & I gather Adams campaigned for mayor on a law & order ticket.
The puzzling news: it was the criminal, the shooter that telephoned his location to the police, who then arrested him at the location the criminal disclosed. Before that news was announced I saw video of a government official boasting that their investigation was to thorough they left no place for the fugitive to hide.
"we take arms against a sea of troubles".
So perhaps the few successful among us are those with the best marksmanship.
The puzzling news: it was the criminal, the shooter that telephoned his location to the police, who then arrested him at the location the criminal disclosed. Before that news was announced I saw video of a government official boasting that their investigation was to thorough they left no place for the fugitive to hide.
"we take arms against a sea of troubles".
So perhaps the few successful among us are those with the best marksmanship.
"we take arms against a sea of troubles". Sear
But when we elect Leaders that's what we expect, so instead of listening to those that "live cloud cuckoo land" and are rarely confronted with "Life's drama's" speak to the people at ground level and get their views. I am one that thinks retribution is a very "levelling" when one decides to take a life.
But when we elect Leaders that's what we expect, so instead of listening to those that "live cloud cuckoo land" and are rarely confronted with "Life's drama's" speak to the people at ground level and get their views. I am one that thinks retribution is a very "levelling" when one decides to take a life.
"Pose a moral question to a professor and a plowman, and the farmer will answer as well or better, because he is in touch with the earth." Thomas Jefferson
I agree of course. The degree of prudence applied should at minimum be commensurate with the inevitable consequence. One may decide hastily whether to use a paper clip, or a staple. But more consequence-centered analysis is firmly appropriate in the case of human life.
The cliche' is: better to let 10 guilty men go free, than to wrongly convict one innocent man. I'm not sure there's intrinsic magic in that designated 10:1 ratio. But I acknowledge the utility of the principle.
I agree of course. The degree of prudence applied should at minimum be commensurate with the inevitable consequence. One may decide hastily whether to use a paper clip, or a staple. But more consequence-centered analysis is firmly appropriate in the case of human life.
The cliche' is: better to let 10 guilty men go free, than to wrongly convict one innocent man. I'm not sure there's intrinsic magic in that designated 10:1 ratio. But I acknowledge the utility of the principle.
I don't mind saying bye-bye to dirtballs. But there've been problems. "The electric chair" for example has a public image of being modern, & humane. Actually it's torture. And when it goes wrong, it's ghastly.
Some executions used a 3 drug combination to induce death.
Not clear to me why all the fuss.
Seems like a plastic bag over the head, and a rubber band should take care of it, and save a $fortune in the process.
Some executions used a 3 drug combination to induce death.
Not clear to me why all the fuss.
Seems like a plastic bag over the head, and a rubber band should take care of it, and save a $fortune in the process.
I don't mind saying bye-bye to dirtballs. But there've been problems. Sear
I am a little confused as to why it's "difficult to end a life". There are Chemicals around today that end life within a number of seconds, "so inject the dirt bags"
But as a side view, what I see is a sort "only God can decide to end a life" type persons who seem to suggest they have a direct communications with the "Powers"
Well those that have a view that they are receiving messages from what ever God they pray to, what about those that also have "voices that say those that take life send to me".
I am a little confused as to why it's "difficult to end a life". There are Chemicals around today that end life within a number of seconds, "so inject the dirt bags"
But as a side view, what I see is a sort "only God can decide to end a life" type persons who seem to suggest they have a direct communications with the "Powers"
Well those that have a view that they are receiving messages from what ever God they pray to, what about those that also have "voices that say those that take life send to me".
That may apply in some cases. But I believe the same argument is made by some of those that oppose capital punishment, thereby simply suggesting, if god doesn't sign off on the government execution authorization form, that the execution should not take place at all (satisfying their agenda).