Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma Botched an Execution With Untested Lethal Injection Drugs
Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "The state of Oklahoma had scheduled two executions for Tuesday, April 29th. This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested, and thus could violate the constitutional right to the courts, as well as the 8th Amendment: protection from cruel and unusual punishment. After much legal and political wrangling, the state proceeded with the executions anyway. It soon became clear that the critics' worst case scenarios were coming true — Oklahoma violently botched the first execution. The inmate "blew" a vein and had a heart attack. The state quickly postponed the second one. 'After weeks of Oklahoma refusing to disclose basic information about the drugs for tonight's lethal injection procedures, tonight, Clayton Lockett was tortured to death,' Madeline Cohen, the attorney of Charles Warner, the second man scheduled for execution, said in a statement. Katie Fretland at The Guardian reported from the scene of the botched attempt to execute Lockett using the untested, unvetted, and therefore potentially unconstitutional lethal injection drugs."
sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.
> 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heart attack vs. breathing dirt
False dichotomy. Everyone reading this would not be effected by either, as long as he's behind bars.
Cue the madding crowds telling me why I'm wrong to hold my opinion
Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Seems they've tested it now.
He also raped her friend that tagged along with her.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Sure, the crime was absolutely horrific, but how does that give the state the right to violate his constitutional and legal rights and torture him to death with an untested method of execution? Obviously Oklahoma realized that what they did wouldn't pass muster, or they'd have gone ahead with the second execution on the schedule for the day.
Not all heart attacks kill. Many induce absolutely tremendous levels of suffering.
The punishment should be proportional to the crime, but does not need to mirror it. An eye for an eye is a bit outdated, no? If capital punishment is to be used, it should be done in a way that is neither cruel nor unusual - that's the law, until a jurisdiction collectively decides otherwise.
Breaking our laws to punish those who broke our laws: this may be widespread and socially acceptable to some people, but that doesn't make it right. If you want someone to be tortured to death, then seek a change in the law.
bring back the firing squad. It is apparently neither cruel or unusual. Our police use bullets all the time for minor matters.
Maybe you fail to see justice is not about revenge.
can now be labeled 'tested'.
The test can either be graded as a success/fail according to your ethics.
Well, that's okay then. As long as you only violate due process when the mob thinks the guy really, really deserves it then there's no problem.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So you're saying a justice system shouldn't try to be any better than criminals?
The news has a whole lot to do with the method of execution and the combination of drugs they gave him. There's a lot of science there.
Whether or not we decide to discuss that is up to us.
It was an execution that almost certainly violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Nitrogen. Something akin to an old style dive helmet with a hose near the top to feed in gas. When the time comes, switch the flow over from air to pure nitrogen. Simple, cheap, painless and there is a limitless supply of Nitrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation
I am amazed at the cavalier attitude with which many people accept the right of their state government to kill its citizens, and furthermore, am chagrined when something "goes wrong" and people are outraged.
*insert pithy sig here*
Some people think that the justice systems' job is the arbiter of karma, rather than preventing crime. I've not discovered a way to discuss these things with the former group. I'm not sure what you can tell that kind of person.
Generally when we as a society decide that we do not torture criminals to death, it is not because we don't feel the criminals deserve it, but rather that we as a society are better then that.
Did you know that in many countries, sentences are served simultaneously, rather than consecutively?
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal?
I'm sure I will get an argument that "All the appeals that death row inmates use before being put to death cost more than just imprisoning them for life!" Maybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.
According to Robert Patton, the director of Oklahoma's department of corrections, when doctors felt that the drugs were not having the required effect on Lockett, they discovered that a vein had ruptured.
This is not a problem related to the drug(s) used but incompetent administration.
This in spite of myriad objections that the drugs being used for both lethal injections had not been tested ...
How does one test lethal injections?
So you're saying a justice system shouldn't try to be any better than criminals?
Agree. This is the slippery slope that leads to barbaric systems like Sharia, with stoning for adultery, death for professing belief in other religions, and so on.
Not that the crime is entirely relevant to whether state executions should be okay or not, but you appear to suffer from reading comprehension issues. The crime you refer to was committed by the inmate who had their execution stayed after the first botched one.
I am actually mostly against the death penalty but I agree on this one. All this concern over suffering of someone you are planning to kill. It really strikes me as silly. If you really have the moral conviction to believe killing him is the right thing to do, then fucking grow some balls and do it. Shooting him in the head is many times more humane than this whole pseudomedical procedure of dressing it up.
If the people can't handle the blood shedding then they should admit they don't have the stomac for it and stop doing it; not try to dress it up and make it appear less barbaric.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yes, that's right, the science is the story here. /sarc
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
It's one thing to claim about the drugs being untested .. and you can still probably claim they're untested, because all of the reports are suggesting that it was a blown out blood vessel, so the whole thing would've been botched no matter what drugs they had actually used.
(and before you say I'm just against executions ... I actually think that prisoners who are sentanced to life without parole should be given the opportunity to be administered euthenasia ... but the costs of capital punishment as they curently exist are so high that it should only be reserved for those really, really horrible crimes (which this one would seem to be).
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
You're absolutely right. Proportional. He raped, tortured and murdered. So what is proportional to rape, tortured and murdered?
I guess the conclusion would be that if I don't want to die in agony on a gurney, probably a good idea not to be a murderer.
Personally, I don't understand why they don't just push them off a tall building. Gravity is free, nearly 100% guaranteed to work, and they have a few private moments then to reflect on their lives while they plummet. Plus on the faint chance it didn't work, trying again is free too. And then crows get to eat afterward, so it's "green" as well.
Oh, and "sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent." let's be careful with our use of language here. This is not 'random innocent people being dragged off the street, convicted of a capital crime, and being sentenced to death." This is generally "lifetime criminal ne'er-do-well scumbag who has caused incalculable misery in his* life and a rap sheet 10s of pages long if not hundreds, being *finally* convicted of something and then, after decades of appeals and 00s of 000s of $, finally executed".
*his, because it's generally a man. Evidence of sexism in the criminal justice system? (Obviously not, but I highlight it to preemptively mock the people that assume that disproportional racial convictions are likewise "proof" of racism in the system.)
-Styopa
It is not justice if somebody is been given the death penalty and then gets 45 minutes of torture on top.
There is a reason torture (or cruel and unusual punishment) is not legal. If we treat criminals not better then they treated their victims we're not better than they are.
As a society we should strife to be better than our criminals and not hide our own cruelty behind words like justice and punishment.
So you think people should be able to commit two crimes for the price of one.
How are we any better if we drop down to the same level?
While funny, it distracts from several serious problems in the US.
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty? Surely there are some people with mental disorders that can not maintain a life with the rest of society, but this is what Prisons and mental health institutes are supposed to be for. We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business. The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity and nearly everyone in the US can commit several felonies every day without their knowledge. This means that we have people in prison that should probably not be there, and we lack the capacity to keep the really socially defunct people in jail.
We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later. We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world, and why we still have executions first.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Or even something simpler, like some kind of coup de grace, maybe a 12 gauge slug to the back of the head? Maybe by making executions much more visceral we'll be less inclined to make them clean and clinical and stop thinking about them as clean and clinical.
As bloody as such an execution would be, perhaps it should be so and the judge, prosecuting attorney and lead low enforcement investigators could be mandated to be in attendance and watching. It's one thing to plant evidence, withhold exculpatory information from the defense, commit gross prosecutorial misconduct and run quadrennial judicial elections on your persona as a "hangin' judge" when the convicted is executed somewhere else in a manner more consistent with outpatient surgery than an actual execution.
But when you know ahead of time that if the death penalty goes through you're going to see a human being have a good chunk of the head taken off in front of you, maybe you might not sleep so well knowing it happened because you broke the rules.
Let's take a brief look into the mind of the supporters of the death penality. A BBC reporter investigated a few scientifically proven humane ways to kill a human being, and offered them to Robert Blecker, Professor criminal law and constitutional law at the New York Law School: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So, with people like these on the spearhead of the pro-death-penalty movement ... can we expect a humane death penalty?
So, the standard philosophical counterargument is "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" but I suspect that despite the fact that the edgucated world as a whole had already resolved that capital punishment is immoral over a thousand years ago, you'll continue to lack empathy for those you feel "don't deserve it" so I'll argue from your point of view.
Lets make several points so you can disagree with them directly if you feel you need to:
1. Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them. They get guarenteed retrials and the evidence has to be air tight. As a result, capital punishement trials costs states many millions of dollars each.
2. Murder trials are very difficult on the victims family. In order to get a conviction the prosecution needs to present very gory details, interview the family on the stand in depth, etc...
3. Prison is worse than death.
So, if you want to save money, save the family grief, and punish the prisoner in pretty much the worst method available legally, let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. You don't even need to be an ethical person to know that it's the right thing to do from every perspective. When even the catholic church things what you're doing is too barbaric, you know you're doing something wrong.
And then are they released on double secret probation?
Simultaneously serving multiple sentences doesn't really make logical sense if they're being imprisoned 24/7 for the duration of their sentence. It's not like they can be imprisoned for 48 hours a day to serve two sentences simultaneously. What you're effectively doing is just having them serve one sentence and dropping the rest, not having them served simultaneously.
In that case, amend your constitution to say that it's fine to torture criminals once they've been convicted. If you're going to pretend to have the rule of law, then at least make a token effort to follow your own rules.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The criminals involved had no concern over the victims. They didn't ensure they had a comfortable safe end to their life, they most likely died in horrible trauma or worse. Should this individuals have died in a calm and wonderful way so he had no suffering....I'm sure that would be for the best, no one planned this, it just happened, do I feel for their family; Yes. Do I feel for the criminal: no his fate played out as it was planned.
From my understanding, a week with Slashdot Beta should about do it.
A simple .22lr to the head would do the job quicker.
.45 ACP would be -- I carry a .45 every day. Love the round. But a .22 is a cheaper round, and typically doesn't exit the skull, instead, it bounces around the inside of a skull scrambling the brain.
And before someone tells me how much better a
the challenges have been around which specific drugs would be used & sourcing (compounding pharmacies vs pharmaceutical companies) - they could have been using brand Diprivan (propofol) & would have gotten the same result. I saw an interview w/the guy who more or less "invented" lethal injection where he said the drugs always work, it's the delivery that can get screwed up b/c it's carried out by "idiots" (i.e. prison guards). this was a physical problem, not a chemical one but that said if they can't reliably run an IV the drugs & sources are moot.
and that said, I'm definitely pro-abolition but this being /. let's get the science and cause/effect right...
Nitrogen hypoxia. Cheap. 100% effective. Readily available. Doesn't torture the inmate. Why don't we use it? Apparently it's not satisfying our need for justice to equal revenge.
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive.
And carrying out a death penalty also has it's costs. Take a read of costs death penalty. (I may be cherry picking a bit here but) From that article it was estimated that California could save $170 million a year by commuting al death sentences to life in prison.
So do you want to pay more or less taxes?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Well, if you want to go full-on medieval, let's do it properly and just implent the sharia. Slowly poisoning someone to death ... or stoning them. What is the difference? Yes, the stoning is the more honest option.
These are all fair questions, but you have to understand that the death penalty is just that, a penalty. Many believe that the nature of the crime, the lack of potential for rehabilitation and other factors make execution the right thing to do. You may disagree with that, and in many states you are in the majority.
But not all of them. And this one is a states decision, as it should be. So vote your conscisnce or move.
Yea because otherwise everyone will be evil. I mean its lucky the US has the death penalty because it has deterred so many of the evil fucking people. Oh wait, the US has one of the worse rates of violent crime. States with the death penalty don't have less of this crime. It is not a preventive nor a deterrent.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
The 'problem' is that in these United States, we want to maintain the fiction that we're civilized beings, and that translates into 'sanitizing' the process of ending the life of a violent criminal by injecting them with 'humane' substances that are lethal yet (allegedly) painless. While I'm not an advocate of bringing back hangings, or Texas' long-standing tradition of Old Sparky (electric chair, if someone actually doesn't know), an expertly-aimed round from a large-caliber rifle right between the eyes will end someone's life quickly and relatively painlessly, especially relatively-speaking in comparison to the pain and suffering some of these 'people' inflicted on their victims. Of course as previously stated that's way too much horror-show stuff for the general public to stomach, which is why we don't do it anymore. The general public just wants violent, death-row inmates to fade away, no screaming, no blood, no horror or discomfort of any kind.. really, execution by lethal injection is designed to be humane for everyone else, with it being humane to the criminal being executed just as a side benefit; it allows everyone left behind afterwards to feel like they're not as bad as the person who was just killed.
All that being said, and if they're so fucking concerned about 'being humane', then I don't know why the hell they don't just give criminals being executed a lethal dose of morphine and be done with it. Will kill them in short order, and they won't feel a damned thing on the way out.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I wonder how many of the people who are saying "What's the problem if the death penalty is horribly painful? This guy deserved it!" are also the ones who express horror over the government torturing people to get information from them or spying on everyone just on the off chance that one of those people might be planning something bad. If your government is willing to go to such lengths to get information from people, then do you really want to give that government the ability to kill any prisoner that they deem to be a "waste of taxpayer money"?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Leaving assite entirely the debate over death penalty to begin with, when we have to put down our pets, vets don't seem to have any trouble putting them to sleep, (and then inject more and more until sleep becomes permanenet.) Maybe the state just needs to fire to their medical experts and hire some country vet?
Honestly... I don't think you'll ever "pay off" intentionally harming another person(unless the harm is strictly financial). Which, to me, makes the question become "What else can be achieved through the prison system?"
Does rehabilitation require longer sentences for multiple crimes? Does deterrence play that large a role in exactly how serious a crime people are willing commit?
I think the actual observational evidence I've seen says: "No, but a system to retain unreformed criminals makes sense" and "No, people aren't concerned with degree of consequences when committing serious crimes." But I welcome new information regarding these points, it's good to learn from being wrong..
Unless they happened to fall into that 4%. Then that murderer/rapist walks free while an innocent man is tortured to death for no reason.
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal
There are approximately 3,000 people on death row. I would imagine a liberal estimate, if we never killed any, would put mayby 10,000 people that might otherwise, eventually, be executed in prison for life.
As of 2011, there were 2,300,000 people in pirson.
So to answer your question as a percentage: We could save less than 00.5% of our prison budget... assuming executations themselves add $0 cost to the process, and assuming that those executions were carried out before even the trial happened. If you have trials, and waits, and there's a cost to the execution: we save less still.
And remember: these are based on grossly liberal estimates. If I just use current numbers, the savings is closer to 00.1% before lowerign it further with execution costs.
How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?
Because, murderer or no, they are human beings? Nothing is actually gained through their suffering, besides pleasing the bloodthirsty.
For a very long time, hanging was exceptionally torturous because you essentially just waited for them to asphyxiate. It's a relatively recent advance in hanging methods to drop them from a height so the rope snaps their neck, making it quick and painless... if all goes as planned.
I'm glad to see that you make this important moral decision about right and wrong come to dollars and cents. Sounds right to me.... NOT!
Oh, right, I forgot how okay pointless suffering is if an anonymous poster on the internet says they don't mind. I can be so forgetful.
> 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heart attack vs. breathing dirt
False dichotomy. Everyone reading this would not be effected by either, as long as he's behind bars.
Cue the madding crowds telling me why I'm wrong to hold my opinion
He'd still be there to torment his prison guards and fellow inmates. The decline of the death penalty matches up nicely with the rise in supermax prisons.
Everyone who brings up your line of logic imagines that the most base, vicious members of society will sit in prison for the rest of their days reading books and reflecting on their life's choices. It isn't so.
Take a good look at how these life sentence crooks entertain themselves when they have nothing to look forward to but decades of confinement. Then decide if you still think lifetime imprisonment is irrelevant to the living, and to lesser criminals.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I don't think so. His painful death was an accident, just as much as if he'd slipped on a banana peel and brained himself on the way to the execution chamber.
You're trying to pretend that time in jail = some cosmic debt owed.
The countries that have this different system, don't take that perspective.
There are a lot of bloodthirsty people here on Slashdot.
I think it's a good thing to try to move away from the, "He made others suffer so he should suffer," mentality. Punishment, capital or otherwise, should be about rendering the criminal incapable of commiting futher crimes to protect the populace. It's self defense, nothing more. Making sure that criminals suffer is barbaric. It turns my stomach a bit, and I liked that cinnamon roll.
That cost, even if it is correct, it is negligible in the face of: (a) the risk of murdering innocents, when other methods of containment exist; (b) the shame of being one of only developed countries in the world that still implement archaic methods of containment; and (c) the fact that this sort of person and his mental condition is ultimately a result of his own unfavorable context imposed by society.
Why don't states just approve capital punishment using a respirator and a tank of inert gas like helium or nitrogen? Nitrous oxide would do as well as make the experience less unpleasant. Seems a lot more reliable than injecting chemicals.
The framers of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights did not think it to be "cruel and unusual" to hang people. Why do people today think it is? Why not go back to what was acceptable when the foundations of our nation were laid.
Learn the difference between justice and vengeance.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Because the morally superior group that retains the right to judge this guy just loves suffering so much?
You know what I get out of a murderer suffering in agony? You know what amazing benefit society at large gains?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
Did you witness the rape of the girl? You base all your information on evidence that may or may not be true. Completely innocent people have been known to have been executed and/or placed in Jail. The Legal system is FAR from perfect.
Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end. Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System. Yes, even hateful, full of Rage people like you get what they deserve eventually.
I'm not sure why your personal lack of concern is even relevant.
We've got a debate here that has two sides.
1. "We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society"
2. *Comes in shouting about how little they care about the issue*
Simply design a chair with an adjustable height, single shot firearm(really just a triggering mechanism, a chamber, and a short barrel) that is placed nearly against the skull at the forehead. Have a remote trigger, so all the executioner has to do is push a button (or hell, even just have him start a mechanical timer). It's quick, almost guaranteed to be instantly or near-instantly fatal, and cheap. You could place the gun at the base of the skull so that it guarantees the brain stem is severed, but then the witnesses have to deal with the face blowing out. Through the front (or maybe side) of the forehead is a cleaner wound and allows for an open casket. Or, if they wanted cleaner and less traumatic for the witnesses, place it up against the heart. Much cleaner kill, but a little slower. Either way, much less painful than electrocution or lethal injection.
Yes, I am for capital punishment, because I see it as what it's name states: punishment. It is not a deterrent, it is the ultimate form of punishment for someone who has been shown to have committed especially heinous acts. Give them life in prison and it only gives them a more captive audience to prey on, unless you put them in solitary confinement (and that even closer to torture than lethal injection is). And yes, I understand that innocent people have been convicted and executed, but how many other innocent people have been convicted and spent their entire lives or died of health or other reasons in prison as well? The average wait on death row is over a decade, and can reach over 20 years. This includes numerous appeals, and there are a number of non-profits also working to find exculpatory evidence for people on death row. In fact, I am for a longer period between sentencing and execution(perhaps allow the person to waive extended time if they prefer), because it allows more time for the innocence of the person to come up. However, the treatment of death row inmates should be a little better: while they rightly should be excluded from other inmates, they should still be allowed regular exercise and contact with guards and visitors if only to preserve their mental health.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It is easy to be cavalier until you consider yourself, or someone you care about, being innocent.
Or beating people up because they are different Five Hasidic Jews Arrested for Williamsburg Attack on Gay Man
Or because they don't follow your rules Ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple sparks riot after telling woman to move to the back of a public bus
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
No, I'm taking the perspective that "serving simultaneous sentences" doesn't make logical sense. You're not serving simultaneous sentences, you're serving one sentence (presumably the longest or harshest one) and having the rest dropped.
It's more complex than that.
You face many concerns considering legal punishment: deterrent effect, risk of harm to innocents, and direct impact of punishment, to name three. These depend largely on the crime, the punishment, and the surrounding culture.
The deterrent effect, for example, has two major factors: perceived severity of the punishment and perceived threat of punishment. A weak punishment, colloquially a "slap on the wrist", carries little deterrent effect; a strong punishment carries high deterrent effect. A punishment lacks threat if it is unlikely to actually occur.
The strength of punishment comes from perception: jail time, pain, execution, fines, and how much the individual fear these personally. Some individuals do not fear prison; others fear it a lot. The poor fear fines more than the rich. Death almost universally incites terror. Pain is unpleasant, but imprisonment may destabilize personal security and provide greater fear.
Punishment carries threat when it is likely. The death penalty is a great example: in drug-riddled ghettos where criminal activity meets its abrupt end 99% by death and 1% by state execution, state execution carries no threat. In peaceful but armed suburbs, attacking someone may get you shot. Either way, someone will probably shoot you in the face before the state gets to you; if the police do catch you, they may simply provide a noose to save you from a bullet. In peaceful suburbs with low justifiable homicide rates, state action is the dominating outcome to murder; execution becomes a looming, subconscious threat.
Putting these together: the death penalty is a deterrent only where death is feared and state execution is a likely consequence of capital crime. In places where the criminal base is used to and does not fear death at a distance, state execution is a laughable thing; the first thing to consider is how to not get killed committing your crimes.
Once it's determined the deterrent effect, you have to consider other consequences. Fines and jail time can destroy lives. Executions kill people. If 4% of the executed are innocent, but executions provide such a deterrent effect as to stave off a hundred murders for each innocent executed, then that is unfortunate. If 4% of the executed are innocent, and executions provide no deterrent, then that is unacceptable.
And of course there are other considerations. I mentioned direct impact of punishment. You will want a punishment which rehabilitates criminals if repeat offense represents a larger proportion of the crime than the additional general deterrent from the next best method. Putting together further conditions, you can increase the severity of punishment as the risk of punishing innocents decreases (it's null if the punishments to innocents is dismissed on appeal 100% of the time before the time is served--increase punishment as much as you like). It gets extremely complex.
Justice is like sex: it feels good, but that doesn't make it wrong. Executing a man who stalks, rapes, and murders a woman feels immensely liberating to some; it is anxiolytic to a society who can distance themselves from the act of killing yet feel that they have participated in punishment. At the same time, such a man has earned his punishment. We may look down on people for enjoying vengeance, but we should not thus assume punishment is wrong.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
To be more correct, we feel that we should claim a moral superiority by deciding an action is wrong on arbitrary grounds.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The judge can decide at sentencing whether multiple convictions can be served concurrently or consecutively.
All points of time and space are connected.
Death row, appeals, and execution, are far more expensive for the taxpayer than lifetime imprisonment.
At this point, the real question is: Why anyway?
And no, I definitely refuse any notion that at some point a conviction is final. It is always preliminary, as it is always possible that new evidence pops up.
+1 on the .22lr.
My guess is it is not used because it is up close and personal. Maybe they could have convicted killers draw straws do the execution.
I know the Communists prefer the bullet to the head method. Heck, the used to bind people together so the could perform multiple executions at the same time to save ammo. And on a plus, it would not be fail the "cruel and unusual" test. Both the Soviets and the Chinese have executed 10's of millions with this method.
I condone the discomforting terror that sweeps a society when they see a despicable man brutalized by the sheer, violent unleash of hatred upon him for his terrible acts.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sorry this is the 21st century, savagery is somewhat frowned upon now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Do you want to know exactly how bad I feel that this guy suffered for an hour?
I think as little as me, but that is not the point.
What I personally dislike is the gruesome picture that this botched execution sends back to society.
(I also feel the need to state that I'm against death penalty, for miscelanous reasons)
I was recently assigned to a jury panel in a murder case. The state I live in has capital punishment.
I went into the courtroom with a fairly solid conviction against the death penalty (excluding military cases, i.e. fratricide, where soldiers should be held to a higher standard and capital punishment could be considered a necessary component of discipline).
As the evidence was presented, I started to question my beliefs. The defendant was accused of murdering and raping a 12 year old boy, and was a twice-convicted sex offender (why he wasn't already in prison is an entirely different question). This person showed no remorse for the crime, and if given life imprisonment, would still be able to see his friends and family....something his victim could no longer do. It really made me question my thoughts on capital punishment.
In the end I wasn't chosen for the jury, and the guy was found guilty. I still believe that capital punishment is wrong and doesn't solve anything, but life imprisonment, although no cake walk, doesn't necessarily equate to justice or punishment...because let's face it, this criminal won't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be given the chance.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Is that the GOP forces medicare part D to pay top $ for meds, services, which is why it costs more than ACA.
Yet, the same GOP is unwilling to fork money for the drugs necessary to do these executions correctly to have them manufactured in the US.
What a looney bunch that has a great deal in common with the worst leaders in history.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
all of the reports are suggesting that it was a blown out blood vessel, so the whole thing would've been botched no matter what drugs they had actually used.
The reports all come from the same source: the team that botched the execution. It is essential that there be an independent autopsy,
Because you are better then that? Don't stoop to their level. Do your dirty work and move on. Getting enjoyment out of it is macab, and disturbing.
Something of value is lost: we don't want executioners to get psychological rewards from executioning people. By turning death penalty into a circus, we entice psychopaths and sadists to apply for this job. As a society, we don't want to train the next generation of serial killers by giving them these kind of jobs. We want people that don't enjoy executions as executioners, hence why executions should be clean, fast and as boring as possible.
Oh, I guess I'm completely ignorant of my own justice system. Are there guidelines about when he should do which?
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?
.
Some people, you can't "rehabilitate". Some people (like Lockett), you don't even want to try. You just want them out of the picture. And put bluntly, life in prison costs too much - Scum like this doesn't deserve room, board, and free cable on the taxpayers' dime for life. They deserve...
Well, they deserve worse than he got, but we compromise with our squeamishness about actually giving his victims justice by trying to put them down more-or-less peacefully. Kinda ironic, actually, that Europe's refusal to sell us thiopental unintentionally caused Lockett to taste a tiny slice of actual justice
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business
Entirely separate issue. Yes, we have waaay too damned many people in a cage for nonviolent victimless offenses. Gleefully raping and murdering people doesn't compare well to getting high on the "wrong" intoxicants, however.
We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
Where does any moral dilemma come into the picture? Yes, Virginia, you can do things so bad that you effectively forfeit your right to basic human dignity, much less your life and comfort. Lockett did so.
Oklahoma killed a monster today. No moral issues apply.
Because we're not murderers? I mean. You're acknowledging it was immoral not to care when he did it. Why should we be immoral?
Think of the victims. He still got off easy.
Anyhoo, I'm sure concerned volunteers a lining up around the block to help test a new killer concoction...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Your Constitutional Rights have freed you from morality.
Oklahoma didn't realize anything wouldn't pass muster. They were shocked and horrified by a gruesome sight. They are afraid to face the reality of what they do; lethal injection is a long, slow, terrifying process which appears peaceful to the observer so that he may absolve himself of the commission of murder.
An execution should be quick and gruesome. It should be visible death, not peaceful rest. A hanging, a beheading, shooting, a beating to death. A thing that shows us what we do so that we may face it and understand it is terrible but it is just. The more zeal a people have for a punishment, the more visible and terrible it should be so that the people are shocked and sickened back into the understanding of what it is they do.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The US tortures even people who are NOT convicted, they are not much better than other dictatorships. The main difference between the US and other dictatorships is that in most others the people KNOW they live in an authoritarian state. US propaganda seems to be alomost as effective as the one in North Korea.
How exactly does one 'test' lethal injection drugs?
Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end.
You can only mean death, since that's the only certainty.
Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System.
In which case, we'll all eventually get what a murderer/rapist deserves.
I'm sorry to say it, but there are probably myriad rapists and murderers living happily into their 90s and passing away peacefully, surrounded by loving friends and family.
"Nature" doesn't give a shit.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So... what exactly do you think those years are achieving?
Non-concurrent sentencing creates some weird artifacts.
Criminal A is involved in 2 bank heists that steal $10,500.
Criminal B is involved in one jewelry heist that steals $50,000
Criminal A gets 2 counts of grand theft, and a sentence twice as long as B who stole more.
What's the difference between shooting a bullet in the head vs shooting killer drugs into the veins?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Of course I do consider that. I repeat, no system is perfect. There is far far more chance that someone who murders me or my family is brought to justice and put to death than the chance I or someone I love is wrongfully punished as you describe. Far greater.
Yes, I can live with that.
Because the war on drugs mob will claim they'll get addicted.
If you're going to throw ethics out the window, then I'll argue that nothing has value. Once you remove ethics, anything becomes fair game as long as your goal is met. The Earth is over populated, lets go in a murder spree. Logical, yes, ethical, no. Ethics is important.
Yep, life sure is easy when you can just classify people into groups that "count" and those that don't. You know who else killed people they found subhuman?
Except that's an undemonstrated assertion. I'd be happy to accept it, if the conclusion followed from the premise.
But if they truly don't care, the words they use, they also shouldn't explicitly want suffering, right? It's a thin veneer, hiding the fact that there's a thick layer of sadistic glee there.
I'm sure if you ever get "mistakenly" classified as toxic waste, you will continue to feel the same way.
But any ways we need to cut back on capital punishment. To many cases of over aggressive prosecutors with weak evidence that have lead to the wrong person being found guilty.
We've got a debate here that has two sides. 1. "We think there's a higher principal to uphold as a society" 2. *Comes in shouting about how little they care about the issue*
Although we have a lot more than two sides here, I have to point out that "not caring" very neatly does take a contrary stance to some crap about applying higher principals to the dispatching of rabid dogs. Some would take the stance that we shouldn't kill people, period; others completely disregard that as a baseless stance.
That said, I most assuredly didn't say I don't care about the issue. I consider this "accidental" suffering nothing short of karma injecting a tiny slice of justice back into this particular case.
Well, in theory it is.
But when the elected morons criminalize everything, it's not quite the case anymore.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I've read that in Switzerland their suicide kit comprises a helium bottle and a plastic bag.
Also when I give 0,5 litre of my blood, I know that I may faint if I don't drink enough and then stand up suddenly.
I guess making someone give all of it would be fatal with no pain.
(again I want to state that I'm against death penalty, I don't suggest anything to carry on those punishments, just wondering why they still use drugs)
I would posit that being locked away in a box with people as bad as me for the rest of my life is not "getting away with it gracefully."
That's my point. Make it a case where there isn't such (rightfully?) sadistic glee.
Otherwise, most people can't get past the horrible actions of people like this.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Of course, the defining characteristic of his depravity was his lack of empathy for others, his willingness to see them die horribly. It's what made him less than acceptable as a human. Go feel self-righteous all you want, history's got a long, long track record on people and cultures who punish brutally. Vengeance or justice, the motive doesn't lessen the act's effect. Doing things like that turns people into beasts. Your rage should worry you.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
China, Malaysia, vietnam, Uganda, Indonesia, Gambia, Thailand, India, pakistan, Bahrain, Botswana, Equitorial guinea, Bangla desh, UAE, North Korea, Kuwait, afghanistan, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Sudan North and South, Ethiopia, Somalia.
Nice crowd.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Yeah, yeah. Pretending I'm endorsing the murder of one person because I don't support the torture of another.
Great. That's extraordinarily dishonest and you should feel bad.
There has been steady spate of celebrity deaths from overdoses of sedatives back to Marilyn and before. In many cases the drugs may have made them lose count of doses or they are feeling really insomic and overdose. The Micheal Jackson "milk" propofol should be used at triple dose for quick and painless ending.
I prefer people rot slowly in a concrete box for the rest of their lives... death is too easy, even a horrifically painful one.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Honestly I am not sure. I think it is up to the judges discretion and is probably followed by the prosecutors suggestion. There are certainly some guidelines they must follow but who knows these days. The courts appear to whatever they heck they want so...
All points of time and space are connected.
This is not what I come to Slashdot to read about. I come to Slashdot for tech industry news. For intellectual property news. For news about trends in programming, hardware, etc.
And I, for one, as a person who's been reading /. for years, am getting sick of seeing it turning slowly but surely into just another news aggregator.
Stories like this one, with the added flamebait about "4 percent of people on death row are likely innocent" -- even if it's true, we know why it's being put there -- it's flamebait -- make me want to stop coming here.
tell that to those who order drone strikes on their own citizens with out so much as a grand jury inditement.
Sounds like he got what he deserved.
In a karmic sense, perhaps so. But I wouldn't say that then means it'd be right for society to dish out such torturous punishment regularly and deliberately.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I don't know why the hell they don't just give criminals being executed a lethal dose of morphine
http://www.lists.opn.org/piper...
toxic doses can cause distressing agitation
and possibly vomitting, according to one uncited quote I stumbled across, although I'm not sure whether it's subject or observer that would be more distressed by this.
Nitrogen narcosis is another alternative that often comes up, but then some people complain that it's too pleasant.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
What is gained? Less criminality in society.
That's the whole fucking point.
It would be interesting to hear your view on this if you ever were to belong to the estimated 4% that are executed for crimes they did not commit. http://www.thedailyjournal.com...
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
What percentage of that 4% is involved in the crime - accomplice, etc?
Probably most of it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
He certainly wont be committing any more crimes
You do not qualify as human. You do qualify as dangerous and psychotic though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
But... we don't execute people who aren't emotional targets(anymore). That debate will not happen. We got past the era of executing bread thieves. We just haven't gotten past the era of executing murderers.
I disagree. It's very easy and intellectually lazy to say 'we should give the state the right to torture people to death, because look how bad this person is! Surely they'd only use it on someone that bad'. It's the same line of reasoning that says that the state should be granted warrantless wiretapping rights, because surely they'd only use them to go after terrorists. And maybe pedophiles.
If you're not okay with the state having a license to torture, then it doesn't matter how bad the person they're torturing is. If you are... then I hope I don't live somewhere where you're allowed to vote.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The problem is that a lot of us don't think our justice system should be a purely retributive system seeking vengeance upon those we consider "wastes of oxygen." (And no, the death penalty is not a deterrent.) Maybe this guy did deserve to die. But if so, then what about the next guy who not-quite-fatally shoots the girlfriend only once? Or the one who doesn't bury her alive, but just leaves her for dead? Or the one who just rapes her, and leaves her for dead, but didn't actually shoot her? Or the one who just rapes her?
Where do you draw the line between "he deserves to die" and "he's scum, but we'll just give him life in prison"? There's a demonstrable racial bias in which "wastes of oxygen" get put to death and which have better lawyers that can get them life in prison, or eventually paroled. Given that there will likely always be such biases and imbalances in our justice system, don't you think it's a bit on the callous side to sanction the ultimate punishment on an inequitable basis like this?
Complicating matters is the fact that sometimes the justice system just plain gets things wrong. Eyewitnesses are never 100% dependable. Confessions can and have been coerced. "Wastes of oxygen" that we were absolutely certain at the time "did it" turned out to be exonerated by later evidence. As the submitter referred to in his or her summary, we know that this is costing innocent people's lives.
Personally, I would rather have the guy locked safely away where he cannot harm anyone else, but still around in case we find later that there were mitigating circumstances or the jury just plain blew a verdict. Plus, although YOU consider him a "waste of oxygen," people like me consider the fact that even locked away, he can still contribute to society in discouraging others from following his path or, if nothing else, in helping researchers study the criminal mind. There's absolutely no harm in sentencing people to life in prison instead of death, other than the mob's blood lust for revenge doesn't get satisfied. Sorry, but that's just not compelling enough to me to kill someone who poses no threat.
And food for thought, once we give the state the right to determine who it is okay to kill who poses no threat, what's to stop the state from abusing that power? Do you honestly think that the government and the media have never colluded to present a narrative to The People to justify (and get away with) truly horrible things? What if it were YOU being railroaded through the system, with only one side (hint: not your side) of the story being presented for public consumption, and sentenced to death for something that you either did not do or that you did, but with extenuating circumstances that should be a mitigating factor in your trial, but that was suppressed for political expedience so that important people can be seen as "tough on crime"? How is it that you, who I am guessing were not on the jury or legal teams, or who otherwise has no first-hand knowledge of this case, are able to determine with 100% certainty that these guys are the "wastes of oxygen" that you believe them to be?
Indeed. But the bloodthirsty have no ethics anyways, so they will not understand that problem.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Guess what. You can be morally superior to a murderer too! All you gotta do is not kill people.
Well, as it turns out quite a few people are not any better than the murderers they try to elevate themselves above.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Nowhere it the Constitution are those rights declared. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and property can be taken away with due process of law, and nowhere are you guaranteed happiness or even its pursuit.
WTF? People discuss that all the time. And apparently they split, with some people saying it's intolerable, and some people saying it's a good idea, and as usual, lots of people falling somewhere in between.
But let's not pretend that issue hasn't been discussed to death. Of course it has. And there are no new inputs, so few people have reason to change their opinion from whatever it already is. The fact that you (or the other side) never "won" the argument doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just means that people don't know how to prove points of morality.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Don't make this about comparative religions.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The parent poster may or may not have intended it this way, but he actually brings up a good point.
If you commit a capital crime in the US, are tried and convicted for it, and your skin is black, you have a MUCH higher chance of actually being executed for it.
Frankly that fact alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
B may have stolen more, but A committed twice as many crimes. The act of stealing is the crime more so than the actual amount stolen.
That is complete immoral nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. And revenge is a deadly sin (as in: "cannot be forgiven") for a reason.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I decide that the state should display more dignity and decency than a callous murderer would.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Easy: Those here that do not care how he died are _not_ any better. Still a lot of animals in the human race, and at times it shows.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Hypothetical: A person is is of the opinion that someone must die. Perhaps this someone has committed an act so heinous that the person in question feels they should no longer be allowed to live. Why should that person not kill them? Is killing someone so abhorrent worse than allowing them to live?
I oppose the death penalty in practice. I also support the idea of the death penalty, in theory.
So the question is, how can this be? Well, there are people so evil that they deserve to be removed from this planet. However, because of the wickedness of the state, we cannot assure that everyone put to death actually is deserving the death penalty gets it, nor everyone deserving it gets it, it is wholly arbitrary in the net results. This makes it completely unsuitable for actual use.
Or as my dad used to say, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'd be a little happier with all of that if the consequences of the execution of an innocent man was that the investigating officers, prosecutors, judge and jury, upon finding that an innocent man were killed, were taken out and shot.
Instead states that do execute people seem to take a great deal of effort never to properly review evidence of wrongful executions.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Two wrongs do not make a right. A fundamental moral principle. You just satisfied your sadistic lust for revenge.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Or having executions at all. Civilised countries don't execute people, no matter their crimes.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
"We shouldn't kill people"
"That's baseless!"
How do you even respond to the assertion that "not killing" is baseless?
Want to know the difference between a murderer and a rabid dog? A rabid dog can never be rehabilitated because it's suffering from a degenerative neurological condition that is both incurable and dangerous that leads to suffering not just of its victims but also itself. Putting it down is a mercy. Whereas you're talking about a human being who made a terrible decision, but can reform, can be put through completely unnecessary suffering, and doesn't magically becoming incurably evil the moment of a crime.
You want to go back in time and shoot them before they kill someone? That's super duper okay. Pretending killing them after the fact somehow does something beneficial? That's just a revenge centered monkey-brain talking.
Honestly, I think that is only the tip of the iceburg. The whole idea of punishing criminals seems pointless to me. How about rehabilitating them? If somebody is innocent, then we rehabilitate them and in theory that should go pretty quickly since they weren't particularly prone to committing crimes in the first place. If somebody is a likely criminal, then rehabilitation should involve whatever it takes to make them no longer a likely criminal. That doesn't necessarily mean locking them up at all, unless they're so prone to criminal behavior that having them out on the streets is a danger to society.
Getting rid of the death penalty is like arguing that it is better for an innocent person to be raped in prison for the rest of their life instead of being executed. It kind of misses the point, and I don't think the way we run prisons in the US is appropriate for even the guilty, let alone the innocent.
If you think the US is anywhere close to being like North Korea then you obviously know nothing about North Korea.
It's never been proven that capital punishment has been an effective deterrent in the United States. Especially considering that any would-be murderers involved in a criminal syndicate (drugs, traditional RICO, etc.) that would be subject to execution face far worse penalties should they NOT murder someone, and their executioner would be far less dainty about the procedure.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It was an execution that almost certainly violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The INTENT of the execution was NOT to cause him pain. The intent was to put him to sleep, then when he was unconscious, cause his death by medication. No pain is caused when this process works as designed. Had the IV not malfunctioned, or had they caught the fact that it had before they started the lethal part of the medication delivery, there would have been no pain caused.
The PROBLEM was that the IV they where using to deliver the medications blew out the vein and stopped working sometime after the sleeping medication was started. This only became apparent AFTER the medications used to cause his death had been delivered. This was an unfortunate accident.
This will and should cause a care examination of the process being used. They will make adjustments to avoid this problem in the future. But one thing is CLEAR, this was not because they where using some untested mix of medications or the wrong dosages. I'm guessing that from now on they will start two IV's and then be ready to keep the subject unconscious though either, while the lethal medications are administered.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Practically every culture and religion in history?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Living in Europe, I read this thread. Horrors. I'm usually quite happy about the differences and similarities between our two parts of the world and try to learn from the for me different US perspective.
But this thread is like going to China; it makes me utterly aware that I'm European (from Sweden, less important here). I'm from the part of the world where the state does not kill it's citizens for whatever reason. And this this is in the end a question of moral. Discussing this from the point of costs is just not sane. Nor is it a technical issue on the best way to slaughter people.
I should listen more if these methods were effective in any measurable way, besides winning elections. But we all know this is not the case.
Quite near in time and space was the mass-murder committed by Anders Bering Breivik. in Utöya which killed 69 people. This was in a country were even the life-sentence is prohibited, Breivik was sentenced for 21 years. To my knowledge there were (almost?) no debate about a need for capitol punishment this case. Norway was, and despite this exception still is a society with very little violence. To me, it seems like the society focused it's efforts to take care of the victim's relatives and to rebuild the overall trust rather than revenge. I really admire this.
--alec
Ironically, putting an inmate on death row and going through the process is far, far more expensive than simply incarcerating them for life. Since they usually have a public defender as a lawyer and it has to go through the appeals process many times, a criminal who is ultimately executed usually costs the state several million dollars. Whereas the cost of keeping them incarcerated is 20-50K a year depending on the state.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Yeah, but your balancing your equation of "what's a life worth" against literally no measurable benefit(that I've ever seen demonstrated in any sort of factual way, before we get some bizarre hypothetical here).
I'll continue to assert that substantive evidence about improvement of quality of life/safety for other citizens is a valid reason, but you actually have to prove that to overturn principal for "pragmatism".
It may have been, but it makes those that executed him murderers. Committing more immoral acts does not fix other immoral acts having been committed before. It makes the situation worse.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I mentioned this in another comment in this thread, but death row costs a state more than incarceration for life, due to all the automatic appeals.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
This. Do I feel bad a murderer suffers pain? Not really. But human history is so full of torture as a tool of state, the founding fathers included a ban on it in their wisdom, along with many other gems like freedom of speech and religion and so on, precisely because of abuse of all of it by men trying to stay in power.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Proportional means that someone who steals a car should get a proportionally more lenient sentence than someone who commits murder, but there must be a limit. Depending on jurisdiction, that limit is death or life in prison.
If you start taking proportional punishment too literally then we'll be setting up torture chambers instead of execution chambers, and intentionally keeping felons alive as they writhe in pain for days on end. If that's what you want, then that's your right. I'm personally glad society is moving away from that, not toward it.
At least the bad parts that lead to massive injustices in those cultures, yeah.
A book that does a great job discussing the topic of dehumanization.
What amazes me is that it's mostly the right wing which supports even these violent and revengeful executions. These are the same people who claim to be for some sort of nebulously smaller government, but want to give some governments the position of monarchies - as in the King of Oklahoma's representitives can do no wrong and may deliberate in secret as the king wishes.
Who is John Cabal?
The drugs are more expensive.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
revenge is a deadly sin (as in: "cannot be forgiven") for a reason.
While I agree that what happened is wrong, basing ones argument on religious reasons will never work. Because seven simple words will completely deconstruct your argument.
"My religion does not have that concept."
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Ah, a would-be torturer. You do realize, that you exceed the level of immorality of your would-be victims, right?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I am reminded of a TOS episode where two warring planets had made their war so clean and clinical that they had no real reason to stop it. Until Captain Kirk came in and showed them what war really was, something horrifying, to be avoided. Even if it meant talking peace with your enemy.
Capital punishment is such an atrocity. Maybe if it was shown to be that atrocity, there would be less support for it. Public hanging, firing squad, maybe even dust off the electric chair. Show that it's gross and disgusting, and that civilized people have better ways to keep their societies working.
...laura
I can't imagine even a long drop hanging being painless. Think how it'd feel to have your shoulder knocked out of alignment, then imagine that sensation in your neck instead. Consider that the brain can survive for about ten minutes without oxygen, even if unconsciousness would come somewhat sooner. Breaking the neck simply cuts off the brain from the rest of the body and halts its movement--it doesn't instantly kill everything from the noose up.
I'm not interested in joining the death penalty debate, simply putting forth the notion that motionless does not equate painless.
Leaving the brain intact during an execution without sedatives necessarily introduces a period of intense suffering clearly able to be described as torture. That's why we don't use the guillotine, or hang people anymore, even though either would be much cheaper than injections.
What's so difficult about life without parole? It'd probably work out cheaper, if you factor in the expense of capital cases. Besides, it's easier to pardon and pay compensation to somebody if they're innocent, if they're still alive.
The system is there to PUNISH too. Now you can call it Karma in a hand waving dismissive way if that makes you feel superior but you're just dishing up the same tired old argument that the system is simply there to keep criminals away from the public. No, it isn't - its more than that. There is a natural justice that most normal people (ie not feeble minded metro-liberals) feel needs to be carried out with regards to heinous crimes since seeing that done is one of the foundations of a stable human society.
As you went on describing those groups you got more and more fringe-right.
Seems an accurate description. Sometimes I wonder whether actually having the Christian faith being more than a fantasy would be desirable: All those evil scum would get a really nasty surprise after death.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Wasn't this only caused because the standard drugs used for lethal injection were withheld by a European company?
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
but want to give some governments the position of monarchies
He was convicted and sentenced by a jury, the sentence was confirmed by a judge, the trial was reviewed by other judges, at multiple levels, all happening before the Governor decided to proceed with the execution. There's no monarchy here, and you can disagree with the death penalty without resorting to false comparisons.
Related opinion that's sure to make me popular: End the lethal injection nonsense and just shoot condemned criminals. It worked for Utah. It requires no medical personal to take part and violate their oath. It requires no sourcing of components from overseas trading partners that are anti death penalty. Being shot with a rifle is a damn near instant death and is a lot more humane than experimenting with drugs.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
On the other hand "showing those people how wrong they are" isn't a valid justification for the pragmatic result of more suffering.
"It's never been proven that capital punishment has been an effective deterrent"
Who the fuck cares? It's not about deterring, it's about punishing.
Good grief, can you not understand that some people do things that are so violent, so terrible, so inhuman that it cannot otherwise be tolerated and this person has to be dealt with by people that are themselves human and civilized; that is the person who commits these terrible acts cannot be allowed to remain people.
This is a textbook case of one such person. Deterrence has fuck-all to do with this.
> It is easy to be cavalier until you consider yourself, or someone you care about, being innocent.
The same smugness applies to an execution or life in prison. You've just managed to kid yourself that one is cruel while the other is not. This is total bullsh*t of course.
You simply choose to ignore the decades on death row and for no good reason either.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt.
Of course that is not beyond what he deserved. This is not about what he deserved. The reason we don't torture people is because only people who are mentally damaged, like him, do that to other people -- regardless of what they deserve. I am not mentally damaged, so I don't want to torture people, and won't have my state doing it in my name. Civilized people don't torture people to death. We take bad people and remove them from society, ashamed that they were once allowed to roam free, but not made worse by allowing blood lust to take our minds.
And if you are so inclined, you should seek help. If you're not going to do that, at least keep it to yourself. Pretend you're not a degenerate so you don't debase us as a society. Or, if you can't control it, at least have the decency to leave evidence when your monster drives you to some hideous act so we can catch you and put your deranged ass behind bars with the other animals.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Sounds like you've only ever heard the word out-loud.
It's spelled "macabre", which is different enough that spellcheck couldn't help you.
Citing data from a group funded by an anti-death penalty groups and individuals? Yeah, cherry picking just a bit.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
"probably *wild assertion*"
Quite. Like what is happening in Egypt right now where a court has convicted 650 people to death, ostensibly for rioting and being members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The mass trial lasted a few hours.
Amongst those convicted, for rioting remember, one of them is wheelchair bound due to Polio. He can't even stand up, let alone throw things at the police and run away.
These people are being convicted to death not because they deserve it, but because the military junta currently running the country want to wipe out the Muslim Brotherhood. People will say "Oh but this is America and nothing like this will ever happen", but then conveniently forget times from the past such as McCarthy; let's not pretend that if the panic had increased, the government would have gleefully killed people for "spying", on the most flimsy of evidence. Let's not forget too, the various kangaroo courts that the US government have tried to establish to try Gitmo detainees: those are a gnats fart away from killing people just because they don't like a persons politics.
Still, as long as it's not you, or a loved one, being strapped to the gurney, everything's fine.
And what about the 4%? Is that an acceptable attrition rate?
Based on [error:missing data] highly considered philosophical treatise?
The difference is that what they may actually have done may or may not be a capital offense.
It's more ethical, cheaper, and more just to not execute your own citizens. Let the bastards rot, sure. If the family wants revenge they can go see what the asshole's turned into in the lifer block.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
I would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned.
You can't "undo" an execution or imprisonment. The guilty still have a chance at getting theirs.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Why are they experimenting with 3-drug combinations when they could just use sedatives? They work just fine for putting pets "to sleep".
A psychopath would be ideal for it. Don't confuse terms. Someone being able to turn off their switch and just do the job is arguably better than someone doing it because it has to be done (and suffering mentally for it)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
At some point the whole prosecution process is so convoluted and loaden with the egos of the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, plea bargains and with public opinions and botched investigations
agreed, look at the amanda knox case. that thing is a nightmare of italian lawyer and judge egos scrambling to avoid embarrassment. So it sends an american girl to prison for 28 years. so what?
See this makes my whole week. Shitbag dirty criminal animal who rapes and murders multiple people gets "absolutely tremendous levels of suffering"
There is a huge grin on my face right now. Knowing it pisses you off even makes me happier.
Cool!
Capthca: Hilarity! Can you believe it! HAHAHAH Fuck off.,
Anonymous Coward has never been more applicable. Take off your sheet clansman and show your face.
I think the following two things are objective facts that all persons in this discussion would agree with:
1) Sometimes people do cruel or unusual things to other unconsenting people.
2) It is against the law for our government to inflict cruel or unusual punishments.
(Am I mistaken? Are either of these two "facts" disputed and not actually facts?)
And I think both you and I (but not everyone) would accept 1a: Some people deserve cruel or unusual punishments.
Either we're going to have to withdraw our support for that law (amend the constitution) or accept that our policy isn't be about giving people what they deserve. That doesn't necessarily mean we can't have a death penalty, just that there are limits to how far we can lawfully go, and those limits are likely to fall short of what some people deserve.
tl;dnr: people getting what they deserve, does not suggest a lack of problem.
That's exactly the same standard we're supposed to be using in non-capital cases too!
It is not valid for death sentences to cost more than life sentences. The real problem is that people aren't getting competent and thorough defenses in the initial trial. I would argue it's even more of an injustice for those receiving life sentences because, without the permanence of execution, the public sees it as less of a problem worth fixing.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Not so much deterrent as prevention. These guy won't be committing horrendous crimes again if they're dead. The problem is - of course - that they still do spend a lengthy time in prison and the death penalty isn't really any more cost-effective than imprisonment.
That said, you can't really argue in the way of "the perp still did it" as a point against punishment being a deterrent. You'll always have some people who do terrible things, but you can't really count those that DIDN'T commit a crime due to fear of punishment.
Beautiful. Only on Slashdot could posting the actual background information of the case at hand count as "trolling".
I think this about people fighting for humane treatment of animals before killing them.
However, for people - it's different - we have laws to not torture them.
Why not use the same devices used to put down livestock? Is what's good enough for our food not good enough for criminals?
Why does the US still even have fines? Why does the US still even have imprisonment?
Answer any of these questions, and you'll have answered them all. Show the foolishness of any of them, and you'll have shown the foolishness of them all.
I think the most popular answer, is that we have these things to punish criminals. HTH.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In that case, amend your constitution to say that it's fine to torture criminals once they've been convicted. If you're going to pretend to have the rule of law, then at least make a token effort to follow your own rules.
There is no such thing as a torture free (pain free) way to take someone's life. (Although you could also argue putting someone in solitary for forty years is also a form of torture).
As opposed to "knowing" that 4% of executed criminals were innocent?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Besides that: I don't think the death penalty makes sense at all. It is no penalty, as it doesn't influence the future behaviour of the perpetrator. It is just codified revenge.
Nothing is proportional to murder. That's what makes it such a terrible crime; there's really no way justice can ever be served since it's impossible to repay the cost of a human life. Some people try with the death penalty, but to me it just reeks of vengeance, not justice.
Okay, took some digging on the proceedings of the national academy of sciences.
Essentially they applied comparative statistical methods on exoneration rates of those on death row(but not yet executed), those not on death row, and found that while the latter mapped to a Poisson distribution for exoneration occurrences, the former fell off sharply at the time of execution(but until then fitting the same model).
They then extrapolated that curve forward past the point of execution, concluding that if they had been continuing to fight for exoneration 4.1% would have gotten it. This includes the very small dataset of those who actually were exonerated after death. They call those conclusion a conservative estimate because it's entirely possible that exoneration rates don't actually cover the full set of unjustly punished.
To be perfectly fair, there is no rational way to read what I said, and come up with what you claim I said. It is almost as if you were a troll or something.
So... which one you consider has been decided to be wrong on arbitrary grounds? The crime (for example, torturing someone to death) that was committed for whatever reason, or torturing that person to death?
It is what it is.
So what? Our country hasn't believed in the value of life, liberty, or happiness since some schmucks flew some airplanes into a couple of buildings in NYC. The great State of Oklahoma had every right to use whatever chemicals it wanted for the execution, and we should be grateful that they've compassionately chosen to delay further executions until the incident can be studied more carefully. After all, there is still a Constitution that suggests the government should avoid deliberately torturing people to death, so long as they're not terrorists, but it's by no means a mandate.
</rant>
From my understanding, a week with Slashdot Beta should about do it.
Too cruel and unusual. No one deserves that.
"true justice"
By which you mean killing a person. Because reasons.
I always thought Tolkein (through Gandalf) put it quite well
Don't confuse Gandalf/Tolkien's admonishment about eagerness with ruling out that ultimate punishment when it's appropriate. Not to mention the concept is a little muddled anyway. Of course we can't "give life" to some innocent who was, for example, killed by a violent sexual predator. Our inability to do that sort of magic doesn't mean we should let cruel, predatory violent killers carry on with life, either. Such people have stated - often verbally, but always through their actions - that they consider any social contract regarding the value of other's lives to be out the window. He has said, "I get to decide on a whim - and without any consideration of how you live your life - if you live or die ... and when you die, if I get to rape you to death in the process before choosing my next victim."
Our inability to "give life" back to you after he's raped you to death isn't a sign that we're unable to realize he's waived his own claim on life. We don't have to be "eager," in Tolkein's parlance, to deal with such a person. But nor should we nurse him along in a cage for the next 50 years.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
My feeling is that we're going about it all wrong, and talking about the death penalty only makes sense once you can get agreement on just what the purpose of the justice system is in the first place.
In my thinking, people commit crimes because they have a behavioral impulse combined with some kind of stimulus that exceeds their ability to control their own behavior, or they have an antisocial behavior that leads them to choose not to control their behavior.
If any of those factors is "fixed," then no crime will take place. If somebody is only prone to killing their wife if they're sick, have three days of argument in a row, and their kid dies the day before, then as crazy as it sounds they're actually fine to let loose on the street without any rehabilitation at all since something like that will almost certainly never happen to them again. If somebody is prone to kill somebody anytime they sneeze, then if you remove that impulse then they're again safe to let loose in public. If somebody just doesn't have a good sense of self-control, or if they deliberately choose to act in antisocial ways, then if you change their attitude or teach them how to handle their emotions, then they are again safe to let out.
If you accept that the solution to crime is to fix the criminal so that they are no longer a criminal, then locking somebody up for life or executing them only makes sense if you find criminals that are impossible to fix.
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?
Well, our judgement is that it provides a number of advantages. One advantage is the it prevents the convicted from committing further crimes. It's safer for the other prisoners, and it's safer for the guards. Another advantage is that it prevents others from committing particularly heinous crimes. I realise that there's evidence that such is not the case, but the evidence is not unequivocal; a reasonable person may still come to that conclusion. A third advantage is that it prevents people from declaring vendetta and taking vengeance. A fourth advantage is that it provides closure for the families and friends of the victim. Families don't have to keep track of parole hearings, and spend time and money testifying against parole.
We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
I disagree. We tend to discuss the morality of executing people ad nauseam. If there's anything left un-discussed, I think it's the effect on the executioners. Knowing that you've killed a human being is going to do something undesirable to your psyche. I worry what it does to them later in life.
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business.
I don't have a problem with that, but then I think of profit as the price we pay for efficiency. I understand that there's something dissonant about imprisoning people efficiently, but it does have the advantage over imprisoning them inefficiently. Maybe it would be better to think of it as imprisoning people expensively versus not imprisoning them expensively.
The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity...
I'm not aware of those events, but I'll take your word for it. That being said, and I'm trying not to be flippant here, I can't see how the one relates to the other. I mean--if one executes a prisoner then the prisoner is not maintaining the capacity of the prison, is he? How do prison businesses exploit a corpse? And aren't laws being passed to keep prisons at capacity a problem with the legislature rather than one with the business?
Now that is a problem I worry about. We imprison more people per capita than any other country. We're not a particularly lawless people, are we? Why do we put so many in prison? Something is wrong. Now, it could be said that we aren't lawless because we imprison so many, but I think that's just plain wrong. I particularly decry the increasing lack of a mens rea in recently passed laws. What's the point of that!
We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later.
Well...okay.
We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world,...
Amen, brother!
Been there; done that; the T-shirt's stained with blood.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I care more about suffering as a matter of totality and spread than a matter of the individual. Boundaries balanced with count of affected.
For example: UBI will increase suffering by taxing people and harming the economy, over the alternative of no welfare system (my proposed UBI system requires a lower tax than our current welfare system, so it's not a real trade-off on the large scale); but it also ensures that nobody will be homeless and nobody will be hungry, even though the poor and unemployed will fall into a situation of terrible housing and food and a hellish life. (It also provides for easier upward mobility by eliminating the welfare trap...)
On the other hand, I prefer a partial public healthcare system to a full one. Supplying clinical services for free has a small economic impact (infliction of general suffering), but a huge economic gain (alleviation of general suffering). Improvement of the general baseline health affects the poor greatly. Failing to supply a public health system for cancer and HIV maintenance--expensive services--results in a few people suffering greatly; however, attempting to supply a complete system bears a huge weight on all, pushing more into these situations of managed suffering, and significantly harming everyone else.
UBI: Less suffering. Inflated welfare system as ours: More suffering. Full clinical healthcare: Less suffering. Full healthcare: More suffering. It's more complex than a cherrypick.
In the same way, making people face death makes them more sensitive to death. We've comforted ourselves by making death appear peaceful with a slow, terrifying numbness that cannot be expressed by a dying man. The sickening crack of a man's neck or the image of his head being severed from his body would remind us of the fatally destructive thing we do. Perhaps we would then be less sensitive to the idea of execution seeming uncivilized and more sensitive to the idea of execution occupying a place in society which we find disturbing, a place where we send a man only on the strictest confidence that it is just, and regret doing so even before we enact the decision.
Look at the discussions on execution. People want to lock someone up "because he might be innocent", and talk as if they could throw a man in jail for 20 years and it's okay because if they're wrong they just let him out. Imagine ... between 25 and 35 you're in jail. Imagine the social disconnect, the trauma. If you have a family, it's been destroyed; if you have kids, you miss seeing them grow up. If you have no family, you've missed the prime time of your life to secure a mate and raise one. Your career has been destroyed. Your finances are destroyed. Your friends have moved on.
Just as people do not acknowledge execution correctly, so do they fail to acknowledge incarceration correctly.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Gandalf killed his fair share of goblins. You didn't see him pussy-footing around, trying to gently incapacitate them.
>The alternative says to the criminal that he is free to commit all manner of mayhem.
Legal punishment as a deterrent has been proven not to work.
Ah, here is the core of the problem with these arguments - it's not his fault but society's fault he ended up this way.
This was not torture to death, was not even close, it may not have been the most painless execution, but people die in far more painful ways in every hospital in america every day.
Or asphyxiation by Nitrogen. Feed them pure Nitrogen, watch them pass and die without their body noticing the total absence of oxygen.
I'm fairly convinced that the US actually wants executions to be gruesome. Otherwise, they'd have settled on some long-known and totally harmless methods.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It's not meant as a deterrent, you're right, it doesn't work as one. it's meant to simply eliminate remorseless, hopelessly evil people from the world.
The US has a high population than many other countries, thus a higher crime rate than those countries, but also an open news media, so nearly every crime is tracked and reported, and even sometimes makes national news if it serves an agenda.
If you look at http://www.nationmaster.com/co... there's even a disclaimer that states, "DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.." There is also a difference between a murder and an execution: a murder of an innocent is unprovoked; killing a murderer is not unprovoked and he/she is not innocent. (Granted, they should be DAMN SURE they guy they're executing is indeed the guilty party, in this particular case, it was no contest). Frankly it's akin to killing cancer cells. Rehabilitation where violent criminals are concerned is an extreme rarity, practically a myth. And I'm fairly sure that more than half the vocal anti-death penalty crowd here would suddenly drop their lofty principles if the man strapped in the gurney was Dick Cheney.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
On what data are you basing your statement? I thought it was interesting, but wanted to verify. Google search: "statistics death row executions race"
First result:
Race of death row inmates executed since 1976 (US).
Comparing the percentage of executions by race to the population data shown lower on the page, I don't think your statement is correct. More whites are executed, but more blacks have pending executions.
sig: sauer
"You're assuming that, statistically, African Americans statistically commit the same kinds of murders as others"
No, I am not. That is explicitly controlled for by only counting capital murder cases.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?
So the main argument tossed about the media against the death penalty is about the cost. That argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you say, Forget about cost because even if it costs less to execute people it represents such a tiny fraction of the overall cost. Except that doesn't stand up because your 3000 death row inmates represent between $150 and $300 million per year, so despite it being just a small percentage of the overall tab it is still not a small amount of money. Maybe we save that cash and throw it education or urban blight? You like those things, right?
Just be honest about your argument: You are against the death penalty because you are simply against it.
1) Please feel free to argue with the media about what you assert the media said. I am not them.
2) Your comment is also out-of-context. The question was asked, and answered. You hack a straw man by pretending I was addressing something other than what I was.
3) I am not capable of tautological wants. It would be kinda cool if I could, but I cannot support or oppose something because I support or oppose it. I do require some reason for a position.
On to your post. *You* assert that we should kill people for the reason "it saves money".
OK. Let's kill all people, at arrest. Indeed: let's just have the arresting officer shoot them on the spot. That will save *far* more money than your plan will.
No? That's not your position? Then what is your position? What was that about honesty?
The withholding of the drugs didn't "cause" the execution. If I was going to shoot you, and someone took away my gun, so I stabbed you instead, does that mean the person who took away my gun caused you to be stabbed?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Taking someone's life through a death sentence or a whole-life prison term will never bring restoration to the family of the victim.
So do away with most whole-life sentences. Restore decent parole opportunities. That's what happens in almost every other civilized country, allowing almost all prisoners an opportunity to reform.
The rise in supermax prisons has way more to do with the potential profit for the commercial prison industry than it has to do with crime.
I never said anything about life in prison or a death sentence bringing restoration to the victim's family. I'm concerned with getting dangerous, extremely violent people away from the living permanently. A dog gets rabies. Am I mad at the dog for getting rabies? No. Does it matter how he got rabies? Only insofar as we can eliminate the source; for the fate of the dog, it doesn't matter one wit. The dog is put down because it is simply too dangerous to be allowed around the living anymore. So it is with death row inmates. As for what 'civilized countries do', kindly provide some stories of comparable murderers who were successfully re-introduced to society.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Here's one original study: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111 There are many more out there. The consensus is that a non-trivial amount of people are wrongly sentenced to death, and an even higher proportion are wrongly convicted, but never exonerated on further review
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Crime is a legal thing.
You indicated a person may deserve something--that it is morally his due to receive it. To decide we do not want to deliver it is based in arbitrary moral grounds. Often such views are held in parallel with the view that we may feel good about such a man experiencing hapless karma (e.g., getting attacked by a bear while standing over a woman he raped and murdered in the woods); while we are above inflicting the same (throwing the man in a cage with an angry bear). We openly hope that bad things happen to these people so that it is not upon our heads.
Such arbitrary morality absolves us from consequences. We concoct a fantasy of no consequences to deal with this, e.g., the insistence that the death penalty or even punishment itself provides no deterrent. Reality is both less pleasant and less simple: punishments provide deterrents based on a large array of factors, each of which varies with the local culture. In some places, execution provides no deterrent; in others, execution provides a major deterrent. Even in the latter, we absolve ourselves from the consequences of more innocent blood by convincing ourselves we are civilized; and besides, that particular blood is not on our hands, so it is not our concern.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Then we can lower the cost of death sentences. Juries will feel more responsible when their decision is likely definitive. Prosecutors should also be liable to be executed themselves for any abuse of the process
There are plenty of studies out there that show that executions cost significantly more than life imprisonments. You can get started with some studies here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost If you want to save money, lock people up in the Waldorf Astoria for life.
aybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.
Yes, because making sure due process was observed, mistakes were uncovered and general asshattery by various people was minimized is just a job program. I guess we should just put you in a suit and call you Judge Dredd, right?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I think you are the exception. Most people can't abide the thought of a loved one being killed and there being a 100% chance that justice will not be served. They'll take the 4% chance (most likely much less) of getting the wrong guy than the certainty of zero justice.
This is an interesting point, but it does lead to another problem/cost. If you don't have the threat of a death sentance, then you can't get evil people to take a life without parole sentence without a trial. No one take a Life-WO-parole sentence, no matter how guilty they are, unless there is something worse on the table.
Take this case for instance:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-14-3535475282_x.htm
There is no way this dude doesn't take Life-WO-parole sentence without a trial if the death penalty was an option (he got something like 500 years after trial). Those no-death sentence cases cost taxpayer money as well.
Looking at the mess the prison industry is I feel a life sentence is crueler than the death penalty. A lifetime of torture versus a quick death (aside from idiots that can't manage to kill a guy quickly.)
I think rehabilitation is good for crimes other than capital ones. Murder, the taking of life by an individual, creates so much damage to families and society as a whole as to require at the least a life sentence. Otherwise you end up with vigilantism as people seek their own justice. So the state handles it or you end up with something like the "Hatfields & McCoys" where it's a rifle blast from the woods or a knife to the ribs in a bar.
I would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned.
Well, then we should not even bother with a system of law, because there is always some margin of doubt. We'll save trillions a year on lawyers, police, jails, courts and government, which the criminals can then steal from us without penalty.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Autoappeal should be eliminated then. Really just for show anyway, which is a not a good reason to waste money
I read your longer (similar) post earlier, and while the argument sounds convincing, I would like to see some statistics about the execution being a major deterrent (in comparison to prison terms). I wonder if there are any papers that take into account the subcultures of an area (say state) with death penalty and compare the crime rate to a similar states (and so on). Could you link to one of these, or what is your argument based on?
It is what it is.
I'd like to know how many people who are advocating AGAINST capital punishment on this forum are FOR abortions including late-term and partial birth abortions. My wife, who changed her views after we got married pointed out to me that being against capital punishment was inconsistent with being for abortion. I thought about it and realized she was right. So I changed my stance. I'm now PRO Capital Punishment. But if your view is inconsistent (Against CP and For Abortion) then ask yourself this: "If I'm against a person who committed terrible crimes being executed, then why am I for allowing an innocent life to be terminated just because it isn't breathing air at the moment, but would if delivered to term or near term?"
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
I consider this "accidental" suffering nothing short of karma injecting a tiny slice of justice back into this particular case.
Accidental?! Really? You can't be serious in thinking that this was an accident. This was a deliberate bypass of ethical measures put in place decades ago. It might have been unintended or unexpected by some, but it was perfectly expected by many. Why else would Oklahoma have gone through all the trouble of concealing the nature of the drugs being used?
That being said, I'm surprised they didn't do the baby raper first. Burying a 19-year-old alive is pretty heinous, but raping and murdering a baby... It would have been hard to shed a tear if that SOB had suffered for 43 minutes.
An execution is supposed to be quick and efficient. The working of the State without emotion, the simple consequence for the action of the guilty.
There's a news article that got it backwards. I nearly made the same mistake, too.
How about rehabilitating them?
Well, I am all in favor of that, but how do you actually DO that? What if they don't want to be rehabilitated? What if they like raping and killing babies (that is what one of these guys did)? What if they pretend they were rehabilitated so that you would let them re-enter society and then they did it again? The crime that eventually got these guys on death row was only the last on their rap sheet. Some people are deemed fit to re-enter society and then go back to the prison several times over.
I'm sure everybody would be happy to rehab instead of incarcerate if only somebody could come up with a rehab plan that actually worked.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Not all societies have "life in prison" on the menu.
It is difficult to reply when you do not point the exact problem in my argument. Nevertheless, I do argue that it is probably not his fault, ultimately. But that does not imply that I defend that he should be exempt of any sanctions. Any criminal has to be punished. However, society should expect any normal human to learn and recover. If, at any point, society believes that a person probably cannot learn and recover (at any cost), it is society right to contain this person and its duty to investigate ways of doing so. If that turns to be life imprisonment, so be it. However, when an society kills someone prematurely, it removes this person right to try to learn and recover. I would accept a different argument in case society could not keep this person contained, but that is not really the case.
How is putting hardened criminals in a jail system where they are deprived of freedoms, assaulted by other inmates and guards, sexually assaulted, murdered, etc not considered torture? Wouldn't it make more sense to put them out of their misery if they are facing the rest of their lives in that condition?
But do you weight the two equally? Do you think the killing of a murderer makes up for the murder of an innocent?
I do not.
it wasnt "botched"...the guy is dead....wasnt that the purpose of the entire exercise. If they wanted a quicker outcome.....give me call. Have several custom built AR's that could be helpful and much more sure of action.
Something of value is lost: we don't want executioners to get psychological rewards from executioning people. By turning death penalty into a circus, we entice psychopaths and sadists to apply for this job. As a society, we don't want to train the next generation of serial killers by giving them these kind of jobs. We want people that don't enjoy executions as executioners, hence why executions should be clean, fast and as boring as possible.
This is a very interesting point that I haven't seen anywhere else, and a point I hadn't considered. Unfortunately I'm out of mod points so I'll just comment instead.
I find it interesting that someone calculated 4% of people on DR are innocent, when not a single Jury or judge found those people innocent. It's amusing to me that the people who have these statistics have information they consider exonerating when the judges nor the jury have it.
Or maybe they are making it up.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Why, because he believes that those who have committed atrocities unjustly on innocent people should experience some level of pain when dying? How does this make one a barbarian or a klansman?
The state should not have the power to sentence an individual to death, but death should be available to those who would choose it.
Our government should not kill. A maximum sentence of life in prison is all the force that it should be able to employ against any individual.
If a person sentenced to life does not wish to continue the sentence, then they should have the option to request an end to it. After suitable mental evaluation, and assuming they are resolute, they should have what they seek.
This brings morality and transparency into the process. This is the right thing to do.
They are human beings physically. But in my opinion people who bury alive an innocent woman lose pretty much all rights as a human being once convicted, including the right to life.
Read that page again. The strongest documented discrimination is over the race of the victim:
White Defendant / Black Victim (20)
Black Defendant / White Victim (270)
A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.
How else would you give back the time someone spends in prison?
Time spent in prison is as irreplaceable as a life.
This is comic book morality.
"don't stoop to their level" and "inflicting vengeance on someone makes you no better than they are" are silly tropes that people say to make themselves feel better. It has no bearing in the real world when it comes to how we act towards others.
Justice is not dependent upon "stooping to their level."
And that's probably one of the types of criminals which are most likely to weigh the consequences and probabilities of getting caught against the gained benefits from the crime. The type where harsh punishments actually can make a difference on the probability of a person going through with said crime.
Unfortunately, I would be suprised if not this type is a minority compared to crimes caused by badly planned robberies, crimes of passion, intoxication, and just general stupidity.
Because capital punishment is not murder. Here in the real world, not in some comic-book level world, we have different terms for different types of killing. A murder is unjustly killing someone. Capital punishment is the state killing someone because that person committed a murder. They are two different things. here in the real world.
It's interesting that the people who did this study have evidence and information that the jury did not hear, nor did the judges hear or choose to believe. Almost as if they know something those other people don't about the case. Or they are making it up.
I disagree that it is more ethical. i think it is in fact LESS ethical to let a convicted murderer live.
Caught a retweet yesterday along the lines of "As far as I know, the only Christian sect that advocates the death penalty is Southern Baptist."
"We don't care what Jesus would have done, WE WANT BLOOD!"
For double executions, combine with sulphur hexafluoride for harmonic effect.
Ezekiel 23:20
This is a baseless assumption on your part, and it is one of the reasons the European model of rehabilitation is stupid. The facts are that a very large percentage of people in prison, especially murderers, are clinical psychopaths. Many of these people cannot be rehabilitated, and it is the height of silliness to believe otherwise.
Fighting for rehabilitation is an insult to the families of the people these murderers have killed, because it ignores the past crime, and instead focuses ONLY on the future. It's as if the state is saying, "Well, yeah that was horrible, you raping and murdering that child, but hey! With some medicine, a few get-togethers with a psychologist, and we'll set you free!" rather than PUNISHING people for their crimes.
Argument's based on psychology and internal systemic simulations. I've linked to papers before that argued the death penalty is a deterrent, and those that argue that it isn't. I linked to one a while back that argued both, without coherence, based on various statistics and seemingly unaware of self-contradiction; its summary didn't conclude anything, nor did it acknowledge the lack of conclusive evidence.
Mostly, I'm just outputting summary knowledge gleaned from a lot of consideration and a lot of information I've come across over the years; I don't keep a running scientific compendium to cite from. If the argument sounds convincing, you can either do your investigation to put it to rest or you can just assume I'm amongst the ranks of Locke and Voltaire. In any case, the argument that an action may or may not have an important effect isn't exactly sweeping: I'm basically telling you that policy involves examining hard the effects of that policy, and that some effects cannot be considered as general patterns. I've made the same argument about gun control.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Eye for an eye, etc. And "convicted" does not mean "guilty".
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
And yet they are letting people out early because there are too many of them. How does that deter evil people? Have these people even been re-educated?
It might be cruel, but we have insured it is not unusual.
Cheap storage VM.
Because now we get to live in a world that's minus one piece of shit baby rapist/killer.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Perhaps silly was the wrong word.... disingenuine is more what I meant.
Sorry but I fail to see how this pseudomedical procedure is less torturous than a simple bullet to the brain stem.
as far as I can tell, the only benefit of these procedures is to dress it up for the benefit of the executioners and the state so they can make it look like something less barbaric than it is.
As I said, if they can't stomac murdering people for their crimes, they should stop doing it, not look for better ways to soothe their conscience
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
So if I want them to admit that their practice is barbaric and not less tortureous because they dress it up like a medical procedure, I should advocate legalizing torture? And that is insightful?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yeah, but you have to buy the bullets for each execution. I say we bring back the old guillotine. Each execution is free after the purchase of the device. It gives you plenty of viewer excitement. And I don't see any way for it not to be quick and painless.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
The "state" is merely a collection of individuals. An action doesn't become moral just because the individual is hidden amongst others.
"All the appeals that death row inmates use before being put to death cost more than just imprisoning them for life!" Maybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.
Yep, just give the power of execution right over to the armed thugs (police) in the first place. Then nobody had to pay for judges to hold unnecessary trials and we don't need to spend money for these expensive prison systems. Let's just go full on Judge Dredd style!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
IIRC, it has been posited by the Innocence Project that 50% of persons convicted using eye witness accounts are not guilty of the crime of which they were convicted. Take a look at the number of people released over the past few years after dozens of years in prison who were found not to have committed the crime that put them there. One of the problems for the many innocent folks in prison is that there aren't many people willing to put in the effort to research their situation since there's little profit in doing so. And once an innocent has been put to death it's even less likely that the case will be reconsidered. So, what's the percentage of executions done on innocent prisoners? Who knows, but it's likely much more than 4%.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
My veterinarian did an excellent, cheap and painless euthanasia of my dog. I don't know why we can't have Vets manage the process. They are cheap, professionally trained and experienced.
*** Don't be dull.***
You're saying you're dealing with a genuine mental illness with torture. Great. Nice job.
Not the Dostoyevsky kind but the real thing. As I've aged, I have softened on my stance on capital punishment. My moral side feels that some crimes deserve to be met with death, and my rational side see the flaws in the legal system: far too many errors, especially by "eyewitnesses", mandatory minimums, three strikes, unethical prosecutors. Between those two sides I see how many people we lock up (quite a few are innocent, some sentences don't fit the crimes), and wonder why we still have so much crime in comparison to countries less inclined to incarcerate criminals. I'm shocked at what can cost you your life in many places: drug convictions in Indonesia, blasphemy in Saudi Arabia (can't wait to visit!). Are we somehow a more "just" country because we reserve the death penalty for the most "heinous" of crimes? Is our system of justice meant to punish, deter, or both? The advent of execution by lethal injection allowed us to see it as neither cruel nor unusual. Hangings, beheadings, and firing squads are now too barbaric. But as bunny ("Platoon") says "The only worry you got is dying. And if that happens, you won't know about it anyway." Maybe the method of execution is more about the conscience of those asked to carry it out. As a means to deter crime, no one can say for sure whether a criminal has been stopped short of carrying out a crime because of a potential death sentence. It didn't stop Clayton D. Lockett, but that doesn't mean it's not a deterrent. I understand why his victim's family might support this sentence. When I add it all up, however, capital punishment is loosing its appeal (pun intended).
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
I support capital punishment but believe a higher standard of proof should be required to impose it.
Perhaps something like "Beyond all rational doubt" rather than "Beyond reasonable doubt" should be required to impose the death sentence. As well, esp. in capital cases, the jury should be instructed about particularly unreliable types of evidence (notably eyewitness identification of those not well known to the witness or in any but ideal lighting conditions) and be instructed not to rely on such evidence unless there is substantial "reliable" evidence to corroborate it.
Many guilty people would be spared the death sentence (instead subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole) with this higher standard of proof but it would partially address the problem that you can't "undo" an innocent person being executed but, with advancements in science and delayed discovery of evidence or prosecutor misconduct, someone can be released and at least live their remaining life as a free person.
However, I believe we should provide a painless "death" option for anyone sentenced to "life without the possibility of parole" who requests it. This system should include safeguards to prevent rash decisions (such as requiring the request be made once a week for eight consecutive weeks, not considering requests made in the first year or two of incarceration, examination by a shrink or board of shrinks, and allowing the decision to be rescinded at any time but doing so would start a new two year window in which a request would not be considered). Those who are truly guilty and know they are almost certain to never be released might elect this option and it would save them pain and us money.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Which makes you a total sicko. I guess we'll need to schedule you for execution.
"Clayton Lockett was tortured to death" GOOD !!!!!
he beat and tortured a young girl, fuck him. good bye you shit stain of a human.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/death-looms-for-clayton-lockett-years-after-killing-oklahoma-teen/article_e459564b-5c60-5145-a1ce-bbd17a14417b.html
Because if you don't, that makes you just as bad as him. You know what we do to people as bad as him, don't you?
When TFA includes this little gem of a statistic the problem becomes much more obvious. sciencehabit also points out a study indicating that around 4% of death row inmates in the U.S. are likely innocent.
So we not only have a messed up legal and prison system that can get innocent people imprisoned for felonies, we have a messed up legal system that can sentence 4 out 100 people to die for crimes they never committed.
The argument you are making (look at his crime) is simply an appeal to emotion which lacks logical merit. And look, I fully agree that certain people can not be rehabilitated. Should any people be legally killed while we have severe problems with both our legal and penal systems? Hell no. Should we be convicting people of felonies when society does not offer them any other option? (think of narcotics) Again hell no. Prison terms and real rehabilitation where possible? I absolutely agree with this approach.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Bumper sticker morality should stay on bumper stickers.
So you're saying a justice system shouldn't try to be any better than criminals?
Agree. This is the slippery slope that leads to barbaric systems like Sharia, with stoning for adultery, death for professing belief in other religions, and so on.
Or beating people up because they are different Five Hasidic Jews Arrested for Williamsburg Attack on Gay Man
Or because they don't follow your rules Ultra-Orthodox Israeli couple sparks riot after telling woman to move to the back of a public bus
If they had laws saying that people had to stay at the back of the bus or that they had to be beaten up then you'd have a point
If people _are_ being executed the obviously someone did win the debate. Hint: It's not the people in disagreement or on the fence.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I live in San Francisco, voted for Pelosi and Obama, and am quite liberal. And I fully support the death penalty, and am happy to see this guy off the face of the earth.
>4% I doubt
Doubtless to know this, you must have better evidence.
So why not do the math, publish a paper refuting the logic of the paper that produced the 4% number?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
This seems like an incomplete argument. If you're convicted of a crime and not given the death penalty, your prison sentence is likely to be much harsher if you're black than if your white. Should I support closing all prisons? If you're convicted of a crime and fined, you're much more likely to receive a larger fine if you're black than if you're white. Should I support abolishing all fines? It seems to me that it would be logical to support fixing the disparity.
Okay, and what are the total number of convictions for each of those specific types of crimes over the same time period? Those numbers need to be normalized to be comparable. That same page lists a much higher number of white victims than black ones, so it isn't clear whether the data supports your claim.
This site indicates that the rate of Black Defendant / White Victim homicides is ~3-4x of the reverse while the executions are >10x. That does seem to point to a racial bias in executions. Although, that covers all the way back to 1976 (and even earlier convictions). I wonder if those rates would tend to converge if we exclude older data?
Knowledge Brings Fear
How about rehabilitating them?
Well, I am all in favor of that, but how do you actually DO that?
I don't have all the answers, though I suspect we could make a lot more progress on that front for far less money than we spend locking up some significant percentage of the population. I think admitting that we're doing it wrong is half the battle.
What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?
Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate. That would be indefinite in duration, even if all you did was shoplift. If a way can be devised to rehabilitate people against their will that would be another solution.
What if they like raping and killing babies (that is what one of these guys did)?
You'd need to treat them until they no longer like these sorts of things, however long that takes.
What if they pretend they were rehabilitated so that you would let them re-enter society and then they did it again? The crime that eventually got these guys on death row was only the last on their rap sheet. Some people are deemed fit to re-enter society and then go back to the prison several times over.
Clearly such an approach necessitates a need for a way to determine whether somebody is actually rehabilitated.
I'm sure the system won't be foolproof. Some people will be let out and re-offend, but that happens in probably the majority of cases today already, so we could hardly make things worse.
Today rehabilitation is viewed as a voluntary activity for minor offenders as an alternative to prison. I think we need to look at it as either an involuntary process, or if you're allowed to opt-out you're basically agreeing to life in prison for committing even a misdemeanor.
In such a system, somebody who likes to kill kids might be forced to undergo rehabilitation until an fMRI shows the right parts of their brain lighting up when they are shown pictures of dead kids, or whatever. This wouldn't be just a matter of answering some questions correctly in an interview. Rehabilitating criminals requires understanding the root cause of their criminality, and correcting it. Certainly we don't have the technology to do this today in all cases, but I suspect we could do far more once society accepts that involuntarily changing people's personalities is preferable to locking them up forever or executing them.
I think rehabilitation is good for crimes other than capital ones. Murder, the taking of life by an individual, creates so much damage to families and society as a whole as to require at the least a life sentence. Otherwise you end up with vigilantism as people seek their own justice. So the state handles it or you end up with something like the "Hatfields & McCoys" where it's a rifle blast from the woods or a knife to the ribs in a bar.
Revenge will only go so far. Somebody commits a crime and is rehabilitated. So, somebody else tries to kill them and they get rehabilitated. This can only go so far before the entire population has been rehabilitated, and then nobody will be inclined to seek revenge.
Acting on a desire for revenge is as much of a crime as the original act that provoked it.
"Shoot straight you bastards! Don't make a mess of it."
Have gnu, will travel.
what amazes me is that the democrats dont support killing criminals who murder other people, but have no problem killing an unborn child who hasnt had a chance to break the laws. For the record, Im pro death penalty for people who are caught in the act or who show no remorse. im also not against abortions legally eventhough I dont like them morally
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
and how much more could we save by swapping all life sentences to the death penalty and actually follow through and not let people live for 30 years on appeal after appeal?
How much more could we save if we just let all the criminals free!!!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
None of you would survive in an open debate with me
Of course not. It's mathematically proven that it's impossible to win a debate with a troll since the troll just keeps trolling any argument and evidence given by the other part.
funny how I just used their site to make an argument above against someone stating that we kill too many people. We have killed around 1300 people since 1976. Id say there are way more than that that should have been killed by now in a country of 400 million
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I prefer a rope. It's reusable. Think Green!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
What is gained is justice and a deterrence to future criminals.
Of course that the fact that all statistical evidence points that an harsher penalty is not a deterrent to violent crimes, was simply put aside by you in order to present your flawed argument.
vengeance IS justice...just more fun!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I find it hard to believe that no one has looked into execution using Carbon Monoxide. The cost is negligible and the effect inarguable. You feel drowsy, you fall asleep, and you die.
It's so sneaky and lethal, the CDC estimates it killed > 16,000 people in the U.S. in a five year time period alone.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
end of story... and probably with a lost less torture and pain than his victim
This is really stupid, given that hypooxengation is not only a painless way to die, it's reported to be actually pleasant. (This is based on old reports from Air Force pilots with defective oxygen gear. Many survived.)
Just slowly decrease the oxygen levels of the air, and they will not only die, but won't mind a bit.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Frankly I can think of crimes worse than murder. Rape and child molestation for example. I find those crimes to be WAY worse than murder. I can justify murdering rapists and child molesters, i cant justify rape or child molestation
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The whole idea of punishing criminals seems pointless to me. How about rehabilitating them? If somebody is innocent, then we rehabilitate them and in theory that should go pretty quickly since they weren't particularly prone to committing crimes in the first place. If somebody is a likely criminal, then rehabilitation should involve whatever it takes to make them no longer a likely criminal.
Sorry, but you come across like a tad naive person. What do you mean 'then we rehabilitate them'?? How's this done?? Do you think it only takes some effort, a bit of psychology, and then - voilà - the murderer cum rapist who buried alive the girl he had raped before turns into an angel? Or what?
I too would prefer the guilty walk free over the innocent being condemned to death. This has nothing to do with the crime, but rather the punishment. I would rather imprison every convicted murderer for life rather than execute one innocent person.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, The Lord of The Rings
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Baldus and Woodworth answered a lot of your questions. Case-controlled studies are never perfect, but they're the best evidence we have.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes....
Another measure of race's impact on the death penalty is the combined effect of the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. In the Philadelphia study, the racial combination which was most likely to result in a death sentence was a black defendant with a nonblack victim, regardless of how severe the murder committed. Black-on-black crimes were less likely to receive a death sentence, followed by crimes by other defendants, regardless of the race of their victims.
Let me get this straight: using the word "retard" is deplorable, but inhumane treatment of prisoners is A-OK?
fullretard.jpg
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
That may be the case, but I'd rather kill them than the innocent 4%.
If someone is so desperate that someone innocent must die as a result of harm to a loved one then it seems only fair that they offer to be that person.
Given that the death penalty was in existence prior to his crime, yet the perp still did what he did, it seems that the threat of punishment was no deterrent. So if the death penalty is not a deterrent...
That's completely faulty reasoning.
Example: if, in the absense of capital punishment, 63 crimes are committed in Fooland, and in the presense of capital punishment, 50 crimes are committed in Fooland, there has been a definite deterrent effect despite the fact that 50 perps were undeterred.
Those are obviously made-up numbers, but I suspect there is some point at which the size of the deterrent effect would convince everyone to keep capital punishment on the books. For example, if you could choose between
would you not choose (b)?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Are you five years old or just mentally that fucking stupid?
Lets add another step to your basic flowchart:
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? Yes -- then you've conceded the argument
Does the state kill people whether they're innocent or not? No -- then you need to go away, do some research and learn about why you're both wrong, and a total fuckwit.
]
Presumably, this means that Criminal A destroyed twice as much property breaking in, endangered twice as many people during getaway, had a gun in twice as many people's faces. Sounds fair to me.
Last post!
Seems like a lot of people die from heroin overdose that is self injected. It can't be that painful if people do that to themselves. Why not use heroin overdose for lethal injections?
The message could be that if you commit a horrible rape and murder then you may be killed in a horrible way
It could, but it isn't. Try a couple of variants
- The message could be that if you are found guilty of committing a horrible murder and rape then you deserve to be tortured to death, whether you actually committed the crime or not
- The message could be that Oklahoma believes in retribution not justice
- The message could be that officials in Oklahoma think the bribes they receive from the drug company are more important than the constitution or the rights of fellow men
- The message could be as simple as Stay the fuck out of Oklahoma
I'd rather see justice.
If you're going to do it, use a BULLET..
Tried and Tested.
Yeah, I see that as further evidence that the death penalty has fuck all to do with justice and everything to do with retribution and winning votes by appealing to stupid people that can't think properly.
There are known painless ways to kill people, and the states always reject all of them.
This is comic book morality.
No, that's good-guy morality. You can try to dismiss it with a pejorative, but I'll side with comic book morality over what I infer you consider a more mature and subtle value system.
"Not might makes right, but might _for_ right" - King Arthur, Camelot
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
A big issue here is that while we know how to humanely kill pets, we refuse to do the same thing when it comes to killing humans. Part of the problem is that most doctors absolutely refuse to become involved (it violates the hippocratic oath in no uncertain terms), so the process is left in the hands of medics or technicians. Note that anesthesiologists are doctors and not technicians so they are not involved either. For similar reasons, no one does any research about this, so the techniques being used are from a long sequence of trial and error. So all these three drug cocktails procedures and the like are not scientific.
It clearly depends on the definition of "tested." My understanding is that most states require a trial run that kills an animal before any execution, so the claim that the drugs were untested is, in fact, false. Unless the definition is "not used in a previous human execution," which simply creates a conundrum that somebody had to be the first human trial.
I LOVE this idea. Except, I would expand it make it a no-strings-attached option for anyone charged with any felony, maybe even any misdemeanor. Change the guilty plea to, "how do you plead, guilty, not guilty, or kill me now?" And, of course, the option should be extended to anyone currently service time. Our prisons would be nearly empty within a year.
Modern politics, the same as ancient politics, is all about pretending the opposition are the worst possible people to ever walk the planet.
It helps to shut down all communication, lest someone accidentally begin to understand other points of view. This is similar to demonization used in wartime.
Oh, and I'm betting that we'd have so few criminals on death row after this went into effect, that we could simply abandon capital punishment altogether, ending this whole stupid ass debate for good.
There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing.
With life imprisonment, it is at least possible for the system to realize a mistake has been made and partially rectify it. It actually happens shockingly often.
Once an execution has been carried out, however, we can no longer even partially rectify the error.
Absolutely we should support fixing the system more generally. But that should not stop us from also declaring a moratorium on capital punishment until that goal is accomplished.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Execution is not about revenge.
Read that page again. The strongest documented discrimination is over the race of the victim:
White Defendant / Black Victim (20) Black Defendant / White Victim (270)
A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.
Reread it again. That comparison is without relative context, they're not percentages: It's very possible that simply, more blacks are killing white people than white people are killing blacks, resulting in their higher percentage of interracial crime leading to higher instances of executions. The numbers given there do not state out of how many cases total there were, simply that more blacks were executed for killing whites than vice versa.
The solid statistic here is that 43.10% of deathrow inmates are whites, opposed to the lower percentage of 41.71% for blacks, which is contrary to everything you normally hear spouted on TV and newspapers.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
People claim that "studies" show that the death penalty doesn't work, but really what it shows is that the death penalty **as instituted in the US** doesn't work. If you ever go to Cusco, Peru, you will never have a gun or knife pulled on you. You may get your purse snatched or your pocket picked, but you will never be threatened with a weapon. Every five or ten years some young punk from Lima decides that he's going to rob tourists, and the local thieves are just too old fashioned and chickenshit to use weapons. Two or three tourists get held up, and then the punk shows up dead on the bank of the Huatanay River and the tourists are safe for several more years. No one actually seems to know whether it's the police or other thieves, but it works very well and keeps the tourism industry healthy.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Most people who are in favor of the death penalty are also unaware of the facts of how it is actually used, or deny the facts. Often the feeling is that death penalty is reserved only for the worst of the worst criminals, and it's hard to vote against such a viewpoint. The reality though is that this is not true, it is used in many cases in rather average murders, and seeking the death penalty is up to prosecutorial discretion. Another view is that there are many safeguards in the system, but that is also not necessarily true either, most persons on death row received very poor legal representation, and the legal system in general is very biased against poor or minority defendants (black people are more likely to get the death penalty than white people for the same offense, even more so if the victim is white rather than black).
Much of this is about education. As society learns more the less the desire to keep the death penalty. However there are people who feel strongly that it should be retained, but even there the argument has shifted away from death penalty being necessary as a deterrant because evidence shows this has no deterrant effect.
It is highly unlikely that the supreme court would rule against the death penalty per se, so it is up to individual states to build up movement against it. Note that even California which is often ridiculed as a liberal hotbed still retains the death penalty.
A problem is that seeking the death penalty is up to prosecutors discretion most of the time. Thus one murder will result in a death penalty whereas another almost identical murder will not (and not even get life). Very often the difference depends upon some extra circumstance, such as whether a cop was killed rather than a civilian. The death penalty is absolutely not reserved for crimes that are so horrendous that they exceed the pale. Statistics show that a black person who kills a white victim is vastly more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who kills a black victim (and unless we're being racist, both situations should be treated identically under the law).
Eye for an eye is an old testament guideline (actually intended to limit the punishment), whereas new testament explicitly turns away from that and counsels forgiveness and mercy (gah, that Jesus was such a bleeding heart liberal!). So it is somewhat ironic that the death penalty remains in force in some states with a high number of protestant voters, which to me implies this is a much more cultural or political issue than a religious one.
A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed?
The real criminals are the prison industry. Let's say prison is not a standard household and there are guards and such. But they are also living on a very small piece of real estate per person. Going to college is cheaper than going to prison. Money that could be going to provide financial aid to students is being used to house criminals at outrageous rates.
I wonder a lot of the amount of effort expended in order to avoid reviewing cases and evidence is done in order to avoid the guilt that may occur if the person is innocent. Though there is another cause, in that most prosecutors seem inherently predisposed to assume a defendant is guilty and they fight very strenuously even when there is overwhelming evidence against guilt. (just want the news coverage following a prisoner being released after new evidence comes to light, and it is rare that the prosecutor will agree and admit that a mistake was made)
Yes, today that was the case. But there are many many cases where the person was not more of a monster than the murderer who only got 15-25 years. The death penalty is not reserved for only the worst monsters.
Most automatic appeals are the FIRST chance that a poor defendant actually has decent counsel instead of the underqualified court appointed joke. If you have a good lawyer and are white you will rarely face the death penalty, if you are poor or a minority you are much more likely to face the death penalty for exactly the same crime and circumstances.
Revenge is a normal human emotion. However it is one that civilized societies try to diminish and that many major religions teach against (including evangelical hardcore conservative ones).
Yup, it seems there's certainly some fairly good evidence to support race playing a significant role in death sentence rates.
I guess the question is now, how do we know when that disparity is fixed? Executions aren't such a common event that statistically significant data can be rapidly compiled (thankfully). And the overall statistics will be slow to change for the same reason. Since it seems you've looked into this more than I have, are there any studies that have looked at this while excluding convictions prior to different dates to see if a trend can be discerned? I would hope we've made some progress since the 70s on that.
Knowledge Brings Fear
Until an autopsy is done there is no way to know if/why a vein burst. It may or may not have anything to do with the lethal injection drugs.
Until an autopsy is done there is no way to know if/why a vein burst. It may or may not have anything to do with the lethal injection drugs. The rush to judgment over the drugs is simply a knee jerk reaction by those opposed to the death penalty. It's also worth asking why we have a shortage of the tested drugs. Is it not sue to the anti-death penalty groups harassing drug companies? So they created this problem because they didn't think that some other method would be tried.
Have you actually spent even a second thinking about what you're arguing?
Simple math: Let's take your number - 100k per year per death row inmate. Let's DOUBLE it, to make it even more expensive. 200k per inmate per year. MY GOD, HOW EXPENSIVE!
There are 3,000 people (actually a bit less) on death row in the US, but let's DOUBLE that number, just to make your argument even more powerful. 6,000 people on death row at $200,000 per year in expenses - gosh, that's going to break the bank!
Except it won't. It comes out to 1.2 billion dollars a year to house people on death row. Let's DOUBLE that to 2.4 billion dollars a year just on housing these people.
There are 300 million americans (roughly) but not all of them pay taxes. Mittens got in trouble during the election for saying that 47% don't ever pay taxes, but let's be even more ridiculous - I'm going to say that only 10% of Americans pay income tax. That's 30 million tax payers.
So, 2.4 billion dollars, split by 30 million people... that comes out to.... $80 dollars per year per individual tax payer. Remember, I doubled your estimate of expenses. I doubled the number of people on death row. I doubled the resulting multiplication, and then I took a ridiculously small tax base figure to get to that WHOPPING $80 per year.
What you're saying to me is that $80 per year in your pocket (and it would actually be far, far less) is worth it to you to vastly increase the odds that innocent people will be executed. You're saying to me that you having $80 a year (or about 22 cents a day) is more important than trying to keep the state from murdering innocents or at least reduce the chances of that happening. You're telling me that 22 cents a day (actually a lot less) is more important to you than sparing the families of those wrongly convicted and executed from the anguish of the state run amok.
There's a monster here, but I'm pretty sure it's you.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
The problem is that higher incidence of revenge destroys modern society. That short "burst of lust" the many sadistic people experience when watching or committing revenge comes as a pretty steep price.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"Justice was served" is a pretext for those that are too dishonest or too cowardly to admit to liking revenge.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If people were never being executed, would you say the same thing? No matter what happens, or what fraction of the population is persuaded, someone is always a winner? What a nice "the glass is half-full" attitude! :-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That's all well and good, when you're not talking about people's lives.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
If people were not being executed legally of course I would not have the same words. The problem does not exist so why should it be discussed? At least until someone starts claiming that "So-and-So should die".
Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Sorry, but you come across like a tad naive person. What do you mean 'then we rehabilitate them'?? How's this done??
For starters, people need to agree that this is the goal. We also have to agree that changing somebody's personality is ethically preferable to locking them up and letting them out just the way they already are.
Since we don't really take rehabilitation seriously I'm sure there is a lot that could be learned, probably for a lot less than we current spend on locking people up repeatedly.
In any case, I'm sure the solution would involve psychological conditioning and testing. You used the example of a muderer/rapist, so you start by understanding the urges that make the guy inclined to behave that way, and find a way to measure them. Then you condition them, likely by rewarding good reactions to stimuli, and negatively reinforcing undesirable reactions. That might be as little as giving/revoking privileges, or it might involve things like pain. Then you use technologies like fMRI/etc to detect how their brain reacts to stimuli to assess progress.
It is entirely possible that not everybody can be rehabilitated - they would basically end up being locked up or monitored for the rest of their lives. Others might be erroneously discharged from rehabilitation and end up committing a repeat offense. I don't think perfection needs to be achieved for this to be successful - the current process is incredibly broken and would not be difficult to improve upon.
In order for something like this to work we as a society need to get from a place where we accept prison rape but find brainwashing abhorrent, to the very opposite is true. I think that prison is an incredible waste of life. If shocking somebody for six months gets them to a point where they can be a happy and contributing member of society that employers can hire without fear of theft or an office shooting, then I think that this is better than giving them a bed to sleep on for 15 years and looking the other way when they misbehave as long as they don't bother any ordinary citizens.
> There is a big difference between life imprisonment and execution that you are missing. No, I didn't miss that. That's what I meant by "incomplete." The original statement was this disparity "alone should be enough to rule out capital punishment in the US for the foreseeable future." But that statement missed pointing out why there should be a moratorium on executions compared to a moratorium on prison sentences and fines. It was incomplete.
Your Constitutional Rights have freed you from morality.
Freed me from morality? How is killing someone EVER the moral thing to do? I don't care what the convicted person did -- killing someone is never the moral thing to do. As many other people have already said, two wrongs don't make a right. "An eye for an eye" is a rather barbaric way of exacting justice. Perhaps I misunderstand what you're getting at here, but I don't see how my constitutional rights free me from morality here at all.
Oklahoma didn't realize anything wouldn't pass muster. They were shocked and horrified by a gruesome sight.
After reading a few other articles on this subject, I don't even think they were shocked and horrified. They've only stayed the other execution for two weeks. Does anyone really think they can conduct a full investigation into what happened here in two weeks?
Except last i looked blacks are 12% of the population, which means the incidence is 4 times what we would expect all else bein equal.
From what I've read/heard, the long drop hanging may snap the neck, but does not kill those hanged. It may snap the neck rendering the hanged a paraplegic, but death occurs due to strangulation. It's not known if the hanged is conscious. In an interview with Johnny Carson, Truman Capote who witnessed the hanging of the In Cold Blood murderers it took at least 20 minutes for death to occur. Again, no one knows how long it took for strangulation to cause unconsciousness under these circumstances. Sometimes hanging goes wrong. The execution of the main characters in the Nuremberg Nazis, the hangman was incompetent and some were decapitated and the next up for the rope had to clean up the mess before they were hanged.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
this thread spawn the best and brightest slashdotters indeed...... exactly when a military 'on duty' stops being a murderer in the eyes of victim's family members ? why is that alright? We totally condone murderers in so many situations, I say that the sole judge of the extent of the punishment should be the victim's closest family alone whenever it's possible.... Personally I would favor an incarceration only system.... death penalty is just some dark ages religious shit we should overcome asap....
Of course I do consider that. I repeat, no system is perfect. There is far far more chance that someone who murders me or my family is brought to justice and put to death than the chance I or someone I love is wrongfully punished as you describe. Far greater.
Yes, I can live with that.
Killing is a moral outrage, particularly killing an innocent. If an individual murders an innocent member of your family than that one person is guilty of the crime, if the state murders an innocent member of your family than the entire justice system, and by extension society, is guilty of the crime.
The guilt is obviously much more dispersed, but I think it's an important point regardless. A government that commits unjust acts is a government that loses moral authority and destabilizes the underlying society. Don't you think a lot of African Americans realize that the government is executing a lot of innocent black people? Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police.
What about the message executions send to society? "Killing is wrong" becomes "killing is good if the person really deserves it", murderers aren't bizarre aliens, they're the tail end of a normal distribution of violence. Anytime you shift the mean you're going to see an effect at the tails.
I stole this Sig
The question then becomes: do you want to be a good person with a clean conscience, or do you want to inflict a punishment proportional to rape, torture and murder?
You miss a critical factor in your analysis.
People take cues from society, when society says that deliberate killing isn't taboo, but something that's justified in appropriate circumstances, people are going to take the cue. You're normalizing killing and providing rationalizations to potential killers, it would be a hard effect to measure but I'm sure it exists.
I stole this Sig
How many do you think would still take that 4% chance if the law was, "you get to decide, but if we later discover it was the wrong guy, you will be executed too"?
You mean Texas where it's pretty much a given that they've executed at least one innocent person, and where the governor doesn't care?
Yeah, I think that's probably not the state you want to be using as an example there, unless you're perfectly OK with innocents being murdered by the state run amok just to (maybe) save a few pennies.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I could accept the death penalty if certain conditions are met. I'd have to be convinced that (1) The person was really guilty (2) He had a fair trial (3) Other people who committed the same crime also get the death penalty.
The problem here is (3). Black people are more likely to be executed when they kill a white person. I don't know if there's any current research. You'd need large numbers to break down an association by time series, and they may not have them. I doubt that the country is significantly less racist than it was 30 years ago.
I think that once we've established that there's so much discrimination in the death penalty, the process is hopelessly contaminated. Whenever a black person is executed, you can never be sure that a white person would be executed for the same crime. That violates basic fairness.
If a prosecutor wants to execute somebody, then he has to resolve every possible doubt. If the prosecutor can't eliminate the possibility that the death penalty was imposed because of racism, then he won't convince me it's appropriate.
There are other unfair disparities. The Mahmudiyah killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... of the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her and her entire family, was about the worst of the worst. The soldiers most directly involved were sentenced to life terms, but none of them was executed. If we didn't execute the Mahmudiyah killers, I can't imagine how anyone could be executed.
Wealth is a disparity. Many millionaires have clearly committed murder, but no millionaire has ever been executed in the U.S.
Generally speaking, the people on death row have been convicted of horrible crimes. I do have some dostoyevskian sympathy for them, but I have much more sympathy for their victims. When I think of the crimes that Lockett and Warner in Oklahoma probably committed, their execution bothers me a lot less. When I think of the crimes the soldiers at Mahmudiyah committed, their execution would bother me a lot less too.
But you can't convince me that it's right to execute somebody because he's black when you don't execute somebody who committed an equally horrible crime because he's white. And that seems to be happening.
All else being equal, I'd rather extra money be spent determining someone's guilt or innocence, rather than incarcerating them. If people sentenced to death by incarceration received the same scrutiny as those facing death by lethal injection, then it would cost more to put someone in jail and throw away the key than to execute them.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I don't know. If someone rapes my daughter then slits her throat and throws her lifeless body in a ditch, is that the same thing as my putting a bullet in his head when I find him after he's "rehabilitated" and free a year or two later? I think not and most of society thinks not as well. To the law it's the same but if the law doesn't do it's job that's what will start to happen. Either give people justice or they'll take it.
I think a lot of them.
I'm sure I will get an argument that "All the appeals that death row inmates use before being put to death cost more than just imprisoning them for life!" Maybe if we cleaned up our unnecessarily exhaustive legal process that has basically become a job program this wouldn't be an issue.
The reason why the legal process is "unnecessarily exhaustive" is to minimize the chances of executing an innocent (and even then, apparently, we're still not all that good at it). If you get rid of it, then you're murdering that much more people for something they didn't do.
Ultimately, that's the biggest flaw in your argument. We do get value out of letting those monsters live for the rest of their lives - that value is the lives of people who are exonerated while they serve their sentence.
No, he's not an exception, as evidenced by all the countries who have banned capital punishment - with wide popular support for such a ban - for the exact reasons that he states.
I wholeheartedly agree with him, too. Life sentence is really a harsh enough punishment for any crime - harsher, in fact, than death. Yet it also has the added benefit of being able to correct a miscarriage of justice, at least to some extent. It's a win-win.
No, the alternative says that the criminal should be punished in such a way that, if he later turns out to be innocent, we have a reasonable chance of correcting that injustice. Death penalty is on the extreme edge of the spectrum on this - you can't really do much when all you have is a corpse.
Hence why life imprisonment is infinitely preferable to death penalty for any crime.
Some people, you can't "rehabilitate". Some people (like Lockett), you don't even want to try. You just want them out of the picture.
Sure, and prison does that just fine.
And put bluntly, life in prison costs too much - Scum like this doesn't deserve room, board, and free cable on the taxpayers' dime for life.
It costs too much only when they're actually guilty. And in every case, there is a chance that the person charged is not actually guilty, however small. Taken in aggregate, the cost of sticking them into prison indefinitely is the price we pay for being able to at least partially fix the injustice when someone is eventually found innocent. Do you think it is a large price to pay for an innocent life saved?
They deserve... Well, they deserve worse than he got, but we compromise with our squeamishness about actually giving his victims justice by trying to put them down more-or-less peacefully.
That's funny. You start from a purely utilitarian, "I just want them out of the picture" argument, and very quickly arrive at apologetics of torture killing to satisfy your sense of revenge (it's not justice, don't lie to yourself).
You'd need to treat them until they no longer like these sorts of things, however long that takes.
Been reading too much science fiction? Such a "treatment" is exactly that - fiction. A "test" to figure out what a person likes, is a fantasy.
What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?
Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate.
Why would they not "cooperate", at least apparently? Sociopaths can be legendary actors. Though one good effect of this policy will be that there will be a great evolutionary pressure on humans to be better actors. Hollywood will thank you.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
"if the state murders an innocent member of your family than the entire justice system, and by extension society, is guilty of the crime."
If the state executes a man according to the law and in a case where due process has been served, this is not murder. I suggest you look up the word, it does not mean what you think it means.
The definition is irrelevant to my point. If the state killed a friend or relative you believed to be innocent you would have a major grievance with the state. If you realize the state would punish you more harshly because of your background or the colour of your skin you would again have a big problem.
"Don't you think a lot of African Americans realize that the government is executing a lot of innocent black people? Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police."
This is a complex question. No doubt there are more cases of innocent black people suffering punishment at the hands of the state, I find this abhorrent in every way, and truth be told race has fuck all to do with it; if an innocent man is being punished for a crime he did not commit this is a "bad thing". That said, we still, as a society, need to investigate, try, convict and punish those who would do evil, and in doing so we will sometimes make mistakes as we are men. We can of course strive to make these systems better.
That said, black people commit more crimes per capita as compared to other groups. This isn't right or wrong on its face, and I am not speaking to the cause of this condition, but it is a fact.
That blacks generally receive harsher punishments for the same crimes, including execution, is generally accepted, and research indicates race does play into it.
Are you saying this is all caused at root by society wrongfully convicting some men? That's absurd. The one really has nothing to do with the other at all.
I'd think I answered that question when I stated "Surely that plays some small part in their adversarial relationship with police."
"murderers aren't bizarre aliens"
Of course they are not aliens. But they are murderers. And the crimes some men commit are so terrible, so inhuman, so bad that we as a society have decided that the men who commit these crimes need to be executed. Not all societies make this decision, but in this case they have. If you don't like this you are certainly free to voice that opinion, attempt to convince others of your view, or even move to a place where this isn't done. You may not like this, but it is what it is.
You miss my point entirely. By normalizing and justifying killing you make society as a whole more violent, as as murderers come from society you are likely to create more murderers. And I do live in a place where executions are not done, and I'm quite happy to live there.
I stole this Sig
With a mindset like yours, it doesn't seem all that unlikely that you might one day be on the receiving end of the penal process. Perhaps you would see things differently, then?
Now, to elaborate on the subject of torturing people - criminals or not - to death: Historically, it was the norm to execute prisoners with prolonged torture, but this is something we as a society have moved away from. Not just because we have become more humane, but also because it has no effect on the rate of crime - on the contrary. When punishments are regarded as unfair, people will turn against society and will feel justified in taking extreme action against their perceived enemies; society can only develop in a positive way if people feel they can trust the institutions of society: government, the court, the police etc.
There is a huge grin on my face right now. Knowing it pisses you off even makes me happier.
Really? I have to disappoint you, then; my reaction is not one of anger, but pity. You are such a sad person.
Ah, that's a nice argument but you're dealing with the proportionality problem. If there's a group that will be exonerated falsely, they'll be coming as a fraction from that 4.1%, and if there's a group that is failed to be exonerated ever, they're coming from the remaining 95.9% of those executed. And a small fraction of the latter rapidly outpaces a large fraction of the former.
True, but prior to the withholding we had tested and more humane ways to perform lethal injections. After the company withheld the tested method they forced an exploration of alternative options.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
Who needs "studies" when you have "stories". sounds totally legit, kill someone now and again and people fall in line. Who needs trials and appeals and evidence? Fuck that shit.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
have grreat
If you get enjoyment out of someone dying anywhere anyhow, then you are one sick puppy. Note: I am not saying that the death penalty might not be needed in some cases, but enjoying it? No, it is a dirty job, and someone has to do it, but enjoying it or even worse enjoying the fact that it was drawn out and painful. Thats just sick.
In two weeks, they can decide if they need to stay execution longer.
People like to absolve themselves for what they do not do. How is putting a man in jail for 20 years not killing him? When he comes out, he is a ruined man. He may be a hardened criminal, and may then commit violent crimes again--not because it's his nature, but because he has had 20 years in prison to be forged into a man who has much lower inhibitions for murder. Now his crimes are on your head, and the blood of the innocents who die are on your hands.
Punishment as a deterrent is a complex topic. In cases where executions are not deterrent, we inevitably execute 1 innocent man for 0 innocent lives saved, a ratio of 1/0 or infinite failure. In cases where executions are deterrent, we have a 1/X ratio; if X is positive, we are successfully saving lives overall. We want two things: the fewest innocent people executed per guilty executed (a fraction, i.e. 1 per 99 or 1/99), and the most innocent lives saved by deterrent (also a ratio, i.e. 1 innocent lost per 10 saved or 1/10).
Even if we execute 1 innocent per 10,000 murderers, if we save no innocents by deterrent then we are failing. If we execute 1 innocent per 1 murderer, but save 10 innocents by deterrent for every 1 executed, there will be 10 times as much blood on our hands if we stop; this system is as acceptable as the former and, be it 1/1 or 1/10000, we should strive to reduce the number of innocents lost by incorrect judgment. Although we should target our efforts at the worst ones, we can never consider a system where one innocent is lost as more acceptable; it simply has less need.
I don't see how my constitutional rights free me from morality here at all.
"Cruel and unusual punishment" is interpreted by the observer.
We should bring back medieval punishment. We should quarter people we execute: tie a rope to their head and body, ensure the head severs first--and have a bolt smash the back of the skull besides--such that the transition to death is not noticed. We should flog and cane people for minor offenses. We should do so publicly, on occasion, but on so little occasion so as to not desensitize the crowd to it.
A brutal, gruesome execution may be swift and painless yet incredibly upsetting to the observer. This is good. The observer should hold the resolve that what is done need doing. He should face the consequences of what need doing, so that his senses sicken him and so that he will have no eagerness to have such a thing done. A peaceful execution does not disturb the observer, and he readily accepts the causality of trail and execution; a brutal, disturbing execution forces the observer to grasp for justice, to demand that execution follow *crime*, to question the competence of trial and demand certainty about that which we do.
We have likewise grown too accustomed to the ideal imprisonment, a peaceful alternative to medieval torture. We have forgotten the true nature of torture, the crushing psychological force of long, unending terror for the coming, unending pain. Floggings are swift; the agony does not go on for hours or days on end, although the pain lingers. Prison destroys a man; a petty thief does not deserve weeks or months rotting while his finances dwindle, while his relationships fall apart, while his home is reclaimed by his landlord for lack of payment. Doubtless we wrongly absolve ourselves of this ideal of murder by placing an innocent man in prison, claiming that we can release him in ten or fifteen years if he proves innocent; doubtless we release nothing more than a walking corpse.
We have become a despicable people who claim ourselves civilized because we have painted over all of the offensive things we do in bright pastels.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Which logical fallacy was it where you stand up a situation and then silently remove a piece of that situation? You've claimed "appropriate situations", and then removed the concept.
It *is* appropriate to kill in self-defense where other alternatives are significantly less profitable. If you have a 90% likelihood of death in self-defense by non-lethal means and a 90% likelihood of survival by applying lethal self-defense, it is more profitable to apply lethal self-defense. You are not morally obligated to take a severe risk of death to avoid harming a man who is trying to kill you and has damn good chance of succeeding.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Don't hurt yourself climbing down from that soap box. Revenge is when it's personal. Justice is when the criminal system issues its sentence after all the evidence is reviewed with an impartial jury.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
In all the historical reading that I've done over the years I have found only two societies that were essentially crime-free; the Inca and medieval Japan. In both the penalty for pretty much all lawbreaking was death, delivered swiftly and without appeal. Got any contrary evidence?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
However...How many orcs did Gandalf end up killing?
The one argument I've never seen in favor of the death penalty is that we are applying our current standards permanently.
And that is a good thing why, exactly? Our standards also change for a reason...
Put him in solitary, you say? They're already arguing that is itself cruel and unusual punishment, and I'd tend to agree. People go crazy when isolated.
As someone said in another thread, give them a choice. Put them into solitary, but give them an option of voluntarily choosing death - euthanasia. This sidesteps the issue of whether one is more cruel and unusual than another, while still giving someone who was not validly convicted a chance if they are willing to take it.
He suffered less than his victim did.
F*ck you, that's why.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
This guy had a girl shot and thrown into a shallow grave alive and buried alive. What about the girl he had shot and buried alive. I'm all broke up over his painful heart attack. I say bring back hangings, firing squads and beheadings. These are three methods we know work and work fast without pain.
Paul E. Bahre
I've got a friend in Australia who I've known for upwards of twenty years. Recently I learned that she believed that everyone in the US drives around with a gun in their car, and most people carry them everywhere.
I found this out when she asked where in my car I keep my gun.
Misinformation is everywhere.
Why assume all else is equal? You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that more blacks kill whites than vice versa, regardless of population, because .. let me guess, that sounds racist? I'm just looking at the numbers. Think about how many of these murders are committed by gangs, like the Bloods and the Crips for example, or for that matter, MS-13, though that's latino. The vast majority of gang members are minorities. It's not an improbable scenario. Though they kill even more of themselves probably than non gang members.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Sure, but I'm not the original researchers, and I'm not in a position to do any sort of more detailed analyses of the available data. I was just asserting that the methods had a theoretical soundness that "4.1%" wasn't just a guess like the poster flinging absurd assertions wanted it to be.
"Man dies in botched execution"
I'm curious: Do the studies that account for race disparities in sentencing take into account economics as well?
In other words, are poor black and rich black lumped into the same group?
How about what vets use? Are humans somehow different?
If you put that on a bumper sticker, you'd make millions.
I wasn't trying to discuss whether the death penalty should be used or not, just whether it is being fairly implemented. And it appears that historically it has not been. That does raise the question of whether that problem continues today. If unfair sentencing is continuing or getting worse, we probably should suspend all executions until we can resolve the issue. But the data only indicates a historic issue, not necessarily a current, worsening, one.
I think this is one of the key disagreements:
I doubt that the country is significantly less racist than it was 30 years ago
In my opinion, societal attitudes toward race have changed a lot in the last 30 yrs. And those changes likely have some impact on the apparent racial discrimination in the application of capital punishment. To what extent? I have no idea, I can't find any data to (in)validate that hypothesis.
Knowledge Brings Fear
Which logical fallacy was it where you stand up a situation and then silently remove a piece of that situation? You've claimed "appropriate situations", and then removed the concept.
It *is* appropriate to kill in self-defense where other alternatives are significantly less profitable. If you have a 90% likelihood of death in self-defense by non-lethal means and a 90% likelihood of survival by applying lethal self-defense, it is more profitable to apply lethal self-defense. You are not morally obligated to take a severe risk of death to avoid harming a man who is trying to kill you and has damn good chance of succeeding.
I should have been more specific, war, self-defence, and apprehension of felons are sanction methods of state killing, but execution is a new category entirely. Execution is killing for punishment, justice, or revenge, surely there's a non-trivial category of murders where the killer feels wronged by the victim and is seeking punishment, justice, or revenge. I've no doubt that the state declaring those are valid motives for killing helps provides moral justification for some murders.
I stole this Sig
Another incarnation of said pretext. Revenge is when it is sadism. "Justice" is a purely artificial construct that serves to disguise what is happening. Just look at this whole discussion here to find countless instances of people enjoying that somebody was hurt and killed. It does not get any clearer than this without them actually forming a lynch-mob.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Strangely enough I both agree and disagree, on different grounds. First, if someone murdered one of my family members, I would personally want revenge. It might get *me* the death penalty, but I would want the criminal to pay. But my own feelings are not the same as what society may want or need. All I can think of, and feel free to ridicule, is that if we *ever* hope to have world peace (or whirled peas) then we need to stop killing our fellow citizens. We will never advance as a culture if we keep up the cycle of killing. The continuation of the death penalty makes us so much like the countries listed above that still have the death penalty, whom all share a couple of things in common: they are most all considered repressive regimes AND they kill each other in the name of justice.
And for those who are more pragmatic about the costs, putting aside the moral issues altogether, if you truly want to save some cash, stop killing prisoners.
"Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)."
Yes, I do feel somewhat out of place here in Texas, even though a native. Will we still have heinous crimes committed by murderous crazies? Probably for awhile, until we get that darn universal health care implemented, including mental health coverage. But until then, I just don't see how we can ever hope to have the kind of cooperative, collaborative civilization I read about as a teenager (and still once in awhile as an adult) in Science Fiction.
True, but I think the basic point still applies.
"You can't use that drug cocktail on a human because they haven't been tested on a human."
No I have other values than living in some crime-free dystopia.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Considering that they already have drugs that have been properly tested and (presumably) work, I have absolutely no idea....
There's clearly something serious going on under the radar that they don't want us to know about. There's no other reason why they would try so hard to keep people away.
I don't read all the studies, but I do notice a few of them.
The NAEP, which is the best data on educational achievement, found that the gap between black and white scores on reading and math are narrowing. I suppose that's an accomplishment.
But there's still a lot of racism. For example, in New York City, where I live, I followed the stop and frisk laws. There was detailed, convincing testimony in the court case, which the judge summarized in her opinion (which was a story on Slashdot).
Police used to stop men on the street, with no cause for arrest, and search them illegally. If the men protested, the police would rough them up and arrest them. The facts were clear. Cops got caught on tape. They were clearly targeting black men. They were giving black men misdemeanor convictions.
The final proof was that the Wall Street Journal editorial page had opinion pieces, many of them written by the Manhattan Institute, arguing that police should be stopping black men more often than white men, because black men were more often involved in crime. So there was open support for a deliberately racist policy.
And this is just my own personal experience, but last night I was in a fast-food diner in Times Square. A black man came in. A drunken white woman was sitting at a table, and when she saw the black man, she said, "You get out!" The counterman backed her up, and the black man left. It turned out that neither the woman nor the counterman had ever seen the black man before. This is in Manhattan in 2014. Sure she was drunk. But this is what black men have to put up with.
So I click into this article hoping to get some discussion about the medical specifics of what went wrong and how.
All I find instead is a sea of politics and name calling. Why do I even bother with this site anymore?
You open an interesting philosophical point: where the state fails to execute a murderer, a man may forfeit his life to state execution by carrying justice by his own hand. On principle in the ideal case, I don't have a problem with this; we all know Samuel L. Jackson doesn't.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Say Phil from gang A is murdered, and his friend Bob is certain that Frank from gang B did it. Do you think that Bob is justified in killing Frank?
I stole this Sig
So do you want to pay more or less taxes?
That is what I kept telling conservative friends about mandatory health insurance (Obamacare): do you want to pay for the uninsured people to get service from an expensive emergency room, or do you want to pay for regular preventative care, non-emergency care, for the uninsured? Because either way we are going to subsidize health insurance for the poor, so long as we legally mandate that ER's must take care of anyone.
This whole issue is ridiculous. Look, I'm not going to get into the moral debate over capital punishment. What's ridiculous is how people can't seem to figure out how to kill someone efficiently, humanely, and without drama.
Forget all this "lethal injection" nonsense. Just go with nitrogen suffocation. It's cheap, you get drowsy, you fall asleep, and you don't wake up. End of life, end of drama. Done. Christ, you'd think this was difficult like calculating the orbit of a mars probe or something....
There is no arbiter doling out just desserts
Nor, indeed, deserts (as in, things you deserve - from the same root).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Apples and oranges - there is a difference between killing those that you are certain beyond any doubt are trying to kill you and killing those that you are sure only beyond a reasonable doubt killed someone else.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Been reading too much science fiction? Such a "treatment" is exactly that - fiction. A "test" to figure out what a person likes, is a fantasy.
Nobody has really tried to come up with a rehabilitation program, so it is a bit early to give up. Of course, even researching such a program would probably be illegal currently, so things have to change before there can be any progress.
What if they don't want to be rehabilitated?
Non-cooperation with the rehabilitation program would be cause to lock you up until you cooperate.
Why would they not "cooperate", at least apparently? Sociopaths can be legendary actors. Though one good effect of this policy will be that there will be a great evolutionary pressure on humans to be better actors. Hollywood will thank you.
Such a rehabilitation program would necessitate having a test that did not depend on voluntary/conscious cooperation. It would be necessary to be able to detect acting. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be possible.
I don't know. If someone rapes my daughter then slits her throat and throws her lifeless body in a ditch, is that the same thing as my putting a bullet in his head when I find him after he's "rehabilitated" and free a year or two later?
If he actually has been rehabilitated, then, yes. Actually, even if he hasn't been rehabilitated your actions aren't justified unless they are in self-defense.
I think not and most of society thinks not as well. To the law it's the same but if the law doesn't do it's job that's what will start to happen.
Sure, most of society is as sick as you are. I'm under no illusions that there would actually be reform.
Either give people justice or they'll take it.
Consider carefully what you're suggesting. I think your attitude is unjust. Does that mean that I would be justified in taking it upon myself to pass judgment upon you?
I think the government is supposed to do it's damn job so it doesn't come to that. That's the social contract right? We give up the right of justice to the government. When the legal system becomes a ridiculous tragedy then the social contract breaks down. No, I don't want to take a gun and go get justice for my family. Maybe the way things go it'll come to that though. You seem to think it's okay for people to rape and kill and never pay a price for that behavior. I say there must be consequences for the perpetrators. If you think that's sick then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.
Willing participants are having trouble modifying their behaviour with best of today's medicine and counseling. See relapse rate of psychological counseling and psychiatric treatment. What makes you think we have a chance with potentially unwilling subjects?
We don't have to waste money in "research". Let willing patients succeed first. Alchemy has a better future than your ideas.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Educated white sociopaths tend to become CEOs, who can kill hundreds or thousands at a time and get off scot free.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I fail to understand why "throw away the key" is not serving "justice". Who is this "justice", and why does he or she demand human sacrifice? Are you afraid that the crops will be spoiled if the evildoer is not removed?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
They'll think we were the only sane ones. All the crazy sick bastards that insist on keeping very dangerous people locked in a cage their entire life like an animal. That's sick. Have a rabid dog, put it down. Have a rabid guy, put him down too.
The people yelling the loudest for death penalty are white males.
Care to site any study on that? I didn't think so.
It is very important that anyone that is on a jury understand it's a trial. The defendant may be innocent. Just because you are there doesn't mean he's guilty. Just becase the defendant is an asshole like Mike Tyson was on the stand, that doesn't mean he was guilty. I don't think Mike was guilty.
You raise a good point, which is that capital punishment is only one of the aspects of the US crime industry which is completely messed up. Elected judges, elected prosecutors, plea bargains, and grand juries are other anachronisms which most countries have never had, or have abolished because they are not considered just.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.
By the principle of diminishing marginal utility, the one who has less money overall is less guilty. It may or may not be straightforward to figure who has "less money".
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
In peaceful suburbs with low justifiable homicide rates, state action is the dominating outcome to murder; execution becomes a looming, subconscious threat.
There's scant evidence that this is in fact true. Murder in these settings are almost all crimes of passion. There's no "subconcious" threat to evaluate.
Which brings us to the heart of the matter. We tend to not commit crimes due to an internalised moral compass given to us both by birth and upbringing. We tend to stay on the straight and narrow because that's the right thing to do, not because we consciously or otherwise perform a running cost-benefit analysis. (In fact, society wouldn't nearly work if that were true.) We as a species don't want to kill members of our own species, and will go to some lengths to avoid that.
There's indeed strong evidence to this as studied in the field of killology, i.e. the study of how to make men kill each other. It turns out that training a killer is a surprisingly difficult thing to do. Quoting a marine corps sergeant "One man in eighty is a natural killer. The rest we have to teach!" (Which I note corresponds nicely with the prevalence rates of psychopathy.) And it's illustrative to learn how this process is carried out. Not with moral guidance on the "rightness of killing" (which would be wholly superfluous under your model, people would just subconsciously evaluate that it's no "OK" to kill, and be done with it), but instead by instilling the automatic somatic reflex to take certain action that will result in the likely death of your opponent.
Stefan Axelsson
There's scant evidence that this is in fact true. Murder in these settings are almost all crimes of passion. There's no "subconcious" threat to evaluate.
So, because people will not execute premeditated murder where the dominant threat is state execution, you conclude that murder in such a situation is a crime of passion?
The situation you described seems to set a threshold: people fear state execution and so do not commit murder; they must experience a state of passion strong enough to override this deeply-ingrained threat before they will commit murder.
We have crimes of passion in ghettos with a murder rate of 10 per day, too (we had that in Baltimore City for a few weeks--double-digit daily murders). "Fuck you man you cock sucking nigger" "WHAT? *BULLET* WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKER?!" Instant murder. And yet in other places, it takes much more to tip the scales.
We tend to stay on the straight and narrow because that's the right thing to do, not because we consciously or otherwise perform a running cost-benefit analysis.
Everything you do is run through established facts in the basal ganglia. Your "Moral compass" and your well-accepted fact that the police will come and get you and put you in the chair are the same thing. Immediately reject the idea that people make "Conscious decisions", because we hardly do.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
By "Certain" do you mean he has reason to estimate this with perceived certainty, or that he saw it happen or otherwise has concrete, irrefutable evidence to the fact?
In the latter case, it is difficult to argue against.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Chased by topless women off a cliff.
So once Bob kills Frank is Joe from gang B justified in killing Bob? You've basically just endorsed gang wars not dissimilar to the ones destroying some inner cities.
I stole this Sig
I didn't say it was readily easy to argue for, just that it was difficult to argue against.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Well I just gave the argument, that justification is a sliding slope that can very easily lead to a cycle of violence. That's why I think it's wise to ban capital punishment.
When someone asks under what circumstances of revenge, justice, or punishment it's appropriate to take a life, we can simply answer none.
I stole this Sig
Ah. Sliding slope is not a fallacy in all cases, but it is here. You're using an undistributed middle: all murder is taking life, all state execution is taking life, therefor all state execution is murder. Yours: state execution is execution for justice, mob justice is execution for justice, therefor state execution sanctions mob justice.
The problem is state execution operates under due process--a legal system which carries consequences--while mob justice operates under no such thing. Mob justice may create a cycle of violence, but it is hard to argue that the actions are themselves individually or wholly unjust. Legal justice adds due process and obstructions to the cycle, creating a more stable system.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Mob justice has a process. The claim isn't that state execution is a valid justification for mob justice, it's that it's a justification at all.
Potential killers look for ways to justify their actions, even if they're poor justifications they'll still use them. Say execution is only just when done under due process by the state they'll rationalize that it means some deliberate killings are just and moral, therefore their murder is as well. State that deliberate killing is never just, that justification becomes much harder, killing is less normalized, and a few lives may be saved.
I stole this Sig
I thought he died after an hour?
The victim's family is happy the fucker's gone. As a taxpayer, I say "Money well spent".
Something else I've wondered about is why, if we believe these people are the worst of the worst, we don't use them as case studies in psychoanalysis/physiology. Sure, few might be willing to participate (any number of offered privileges could be used as incentive, though), and even if they do it wouldn't be an ideal situation (if the examiner/pshrink could even be in the same room, they'd be surrounded by guards and/or council, likely), but they could so provide valuable insight into human development that might allow us to recognize these kind of people at an earlier stage and get them proper help.
Could well be that the people our society are so interested in killing are worth more to us alive than dead.
Plenty of murders happen simply because "damn Vikings, moving into the neighborhood and lowering property values" or because "if I can't have you, no one can" or because someone was snorin' too loud or because that little voice in my head that usually just whispers "...be an asshole .. one-up all their anecdotes .. make backhanded comments about things they care about ..." whenever I meet someone, starts whispering "... kill them .. make it look like an accident, maybe involving the microwave oven and nondairy creamer .. no one will suspect..." instead. These people are still going to be considered murderers, even if unprofessional, and plenty of 'em, pro-DPers will still want executed.
Similarly, suppose the state sentences someone to die and calls for unpaid volunteer executioners. You know someone will come forth, willing to do the job. The state might even be able to charge them (it's easy to imagine a lottery, for certain high-profile cases.). Yet I doubt many anti-DPers will be any more accepting of the death sentence.
I don't think taking money out of it, is going to sway many people in either direction. If it does the job for you (and no, I don't seriously think that was your point) then you'd be in the minority. The debate would continue on, still never won by anyone. It ain't about the money.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Willing participants are having trouble modifying their behaviour with best of today's medicine and counseling. See relapse rate of psychological counseling and psychiatric treatment. What makes you think we have a chance with potentially unwilling subjects?
We don't have to waste money in "research". Let willing patients succeed first. Alchemy has a better future than your ideas.
Well, if it doesn't work, then keep them locked up until it does. I'm not suggesting that we should turn criminals loose.
However, it is probably worth noting that mental health issues get second-class treatment at least in the US. They aren't treated like real medical issues for the most part, and treatments are usually limited to a few pills that are fairly indiscriminate in their impact. I'd think that for somebody with deep-seated problems that we'd probably need to use methods that would be outright illegal today. You can't just take prisoners and subject them to torture while showing them pictures of suffering people until they start to shake every time somebody stubs their toe. I'd like to hope that there are less drastic measures that would also work, but while I'm no fan of subjecting prisoners to pain, I don't think that what we do with them already is in any way superior.
You seem to think it's okay for people to rape and kill and never pay a price for that behavior. I say there must be consequences for the perpetrators. If you think that's sick then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion.
And hence there will not be reform unless there is a big change in society. Your opinion is clearly shared by a large majority of Americans.
I don't see why people who commit bad acts need to pay a price for their behavior. People who are prone to rape and kill need to be changed so that they are no longer prone to doing these things. That should happen whether or not they've actually raped or killed anybody, and they shouldn't be let out on the street until we're fairly confident that they have in fact been fixed.
The current system is a catch and release program where people do bad things, then get locked up so that we can feel good about getting revenge, and then at some point they're usually let back out so that they can do more bad things. People who commit really serious crimes usually aren't let back out, so we just pay to feed them for the rest of their lives.
In the future I'd rather see, people wouldn't murder each other in the first place, and when they do for whatever reason, then they'd be turned into model citizens who won't murder anybody else again, and they could start paying back society by contributing positively. If people have your attitude towards the matter, that could be fixed as well.
I think that's an interesting fantasy world. All you need to do is change human behavior.
By the way, have you ever seen the movie "A Clockwork Orange?"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
If you haven't you should check it out.
I think that's an interesting fantasy world. All you need to do is change human behavior.
Sure, but just about everything in our lives today was nothing but fantasy at some point in the past, often in the not-so-distant past. Not all that long ago all the experts would have told you that Apple had already proven that nobody wants to buy a consumer tablet computer.
The first step to changing things is to recognize that what we're doing today isn't the best way that things could be done. That doesn't mean tearing down prisons over night, but it does mean that we can start taking steps to fix things.
Somehow Europe isn't full of mass-murderers, and they manage to get by spending far less than the US on their prison system.
There isn't anything magical about the human brain. It is finite and governed by the laws of physics, and therefore it can be understood. It might take time to get there, but today we aren't really even trying.
Americans do keep convicts locked for a very long time in the hope they'll improve. Since there's no way to figure out if they have improved, convicts are set loose when "society" gets tired of waiting.
Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge. Why do you love movies so much that in order to improve them you're ready to endanger so many people?
OR your statement "until it does", amounts to locking every petty criminal indefinitely since there is no way to figure out "if it did". You might as well declare 50 states to be 50 prisons and get on with life.
Second class treatment ? Sometimes more knowledge leads to less respect for a subject. Respect for alchemy has dropped million fold in hundreds of years.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
And despite all the long prison terms, death penalties, and all the alleged "deterrents", our crime rates our still worse than many of our European counterparts that don't employ these methods. Prison isn't much of a deterrent anymore; since the crime record essentially removes any chance of prisoners getting a decent job that they can feel good about, most likely a return to crime would result.
I highly doubt that most of the victims would enjoy the justice system exacting society's vengeance, either.
Except the loss of a person that could have potentially been rehabilitated into a productive member of society.
Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge.
That's quite a claim. Do you have any proof to back it up? You're suggesting that there is a whole realm of technological advancement which will never progress.
Sure, nobody has figured it out yet, but it is quite a leap to go from that to a declaration that nobody will ever figure it out. Recognizing the superiority of a system based on rehabilitation does not mean that we have to pretend that we've actually figured out how to do it.
And, how, my zealous sir, how is that morality?
Or why don't we use that ancient Chinese execution technique, lingchi? Slow slicing and torture of the condemned. I'm sure that will make everyone feel better about their society.
Because we don't. More public killings would just soften up the onlookers to the concept of murder. Just like in the Middle Ages, executions would become entertainment, and if you think violent video games turn teens into murderers, think about how it will be like when they see it in real life, publicized by a crowd of overzealous, vengeance-obsessed justice fanatics.
I didn't say it will never progress. But the progress isn't in sight. And we'll know when it is, by improvement in results of willing patients.
World financial system is quite dependent on alchemy not being fruitful in the foreseeable future, but economists don't say, or even assume that it will never be fruitful. Elementary changes to atoms are possible. Temporary behavior modification of willing patients is possible.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Btw "there is no way" doesn't mean "there will never be a way".
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
As opposed to assuring the people that death is peaceful, that we inflict no pain, that the process is perfectly clean and happy and utiopian?
These outcries come when we see someone die of shock. The last one was a concoction of drugs that most likely put the prisoner out of his senses immediately, but caused writhing of the body and foaming at the mouth; it upset the observers greatly. They deserve that. We deserve that. We deserve to see it; when we kill a man, we should not be absolved of the fact of death.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Well, people can't tell if it was painful, because no one bothers to try it out themselves before administering it. It could have been excruciating for the prisoner, but the executioners can't know for sure that easily.
You may not be able to tell when an individual has improved enough to be safe to be let out, but you can study and implement the methods produce the greatest decrease in the rates of recidivism. And at some point we may actually be able to tell with a high degree of certainty when people are ready, it may never be a cast iron guarantee, but we can do a damn sight better than we do today[citation needed]
You can hope your chosen course of action will work all you like, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to achieve your goals.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
It doesn't matter if it's painful or terrifying or cruel or torturous. As long as we perceive it as peaceful and humane, we accept that state execution is a beautiful thing that shows our benevolence as a civilized society.
The converse is better: it can be quick and painless, but it should horrify us.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Oh and by the way, your comment is the textbook definition of intellectually lazy.
Kind of like basing your entire argument on an ad hominem fallacy? You are a brilliant satire of something, almost amusing to read.
And that is a good thing why, exactly? Our standards also change for a reason.
It used to be reasonable to burn someone alive for resembling, or supposedly resembling, a fictional character in literature.
there's something called the Constitution. It consists of more than just the Second Amendment. And it says in no uncertain terms that "cruel and unusual punishment" is no bueno.