Slashdot Mirror
How To Execute People In the 21st Century
HughPickens.com writes Matt Ford writes in The Atlantic that thanks to a European Union embargo on the export of key drugs, and the refusal of major pharmaceutical companies to sell them the nation's predominant method of execution is increasingly hard to perform. With lethal injection's future uncertain, some states are turning to previously discarded methods. The Utah legislature just approved a bill to reintroduce firing squads for executions, Alabama's House of Representatives voted to authorize the electric chair if new drugs couldn't be found, and after last years botched injection, Oklahoma legislators are mulling the gas chamber.
The driving force behind the creation and abandonment of execution methods is the constant search for a humane means of taking a human life. Arizona, for example, abandoned hangings after a noose accidentally decapitated a condemned woman in 1930. Execution is also prone to problems as witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner "cringes," "leaps," and "fights the straps with amazing strength." The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands. The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes, and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and "rest on [his] cheeks." The physical effects of the deadly hydrogen cyanide in the gas chamber are coma, seizures and cardiac arrest but the time lag has previously proved a problem. According to Ford one reason lethal injection enjoyed such tremendous popularity was that it strongly resembled a medical procedure, thereby projecting our preconceived notions about modern medicine—its competence, its efficacy, and its reliability—onto the capital-punishment system. "As states revert to earlier methods of execution—techniques once abandoned as backward and flawed—they run the risk that the death penalty itself will be seen in the same terms."
The driving force behind the creation and abandonment of execution methods is the constant search for a humane means of taking a human life. Arizona, for example, abandoned hangings after a noose accidentally decapitated a condemned woman in 1930. Execution is also prone to problems as witnesses routinely report that, when the switch is thrown, the condemned prisoner "cringes," "leaps," and "fights the straps with amazing strength." The hands turn red, then white, and the cords of the neck stand out like steel bands. The prisoner's limbs, fingers, toes, and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and "rest on [his] cheeks." The physical effects of the deadly hydrogen cyanide in the gas chamber are coma, seizures and cardiac arrest but the time lag has previously proved a problem. According to Ford one reason lethal injection enjoyed such tremendous popularity was that it strongly resembled a medical procedure, thereby projecting our preconceived notions about modern medicine—its competence, its efficacy, and its reliability—onto the capital-punishment system. "As states revert to earlier methods of execution—techniques once abandoned as backward and flawed—they run the risk that the death penalty itself will be seen in the same terms."
Don't.
Nothing like a little "Pay Per View" to cover the costs of justice.
I mean, you could just not execute people. You know, seeing as how so many innocent people have been sent to death by racist juries or prosecutors extracting confessions from them with unethical measures. And how it costs a lot more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. But that's just crazy talk! We can't have a vengeance-based legal system with thinking like that!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Please stop killing people in the name of justice. Just stop.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
I wonder what kind of occupation of how and why someone would pursue a career in designing execution methods.
mfwright@batnet.com
It's a bit odd that there isn't more consideration given to the idea of death by nitrogen asphyxiation. It seems to be a fairly foolproof and painless method of execution, if we must have the death penalty.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Considering that assisted suicide techniques are well-researched and well-documented, it seems very strange that they wouldn't simply use any of the preferred, pain-free methods such as the exit bag. What gives?
Give them the choice of suicide or ______________. (fill in the blank)
I'll start: Using /. beta on an old smartphone while waiting in line at the DMV.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So here's how you do it. You build a chair, adjustable to the height of the condemned. The condemned is seated, strapped in and sedated. A headrest is positioned very precisely at the back of the skull. The headrest contains a captured bolt projectile system, and is precisely aligned with the Medulla Oblongata. This captured bolt system is wired to a bank of seven switches, where one is randomly connected. The "firing squad" stands prepared, and at the allotted time, each member of the squad flips their switch. The bolt destroys the Medulla Oblongata, causing instant death.
No messy chemicals, no "everyone in the firing squad missed on purpose" no accidental decapitations, no trashing around under electrical shock, just a thin rod removing the part of the brain that makes humans function.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
With hypoxia (lack of oxygen), you just fall asleep and, if continued long enough, die painlessly.
Hypoxia is easy to implement, just replace the air in the room with 100% nitrogen. There will be no suffocation reflex, since that requires carbon dioxide. It is a completely painless way to die.
* Our atmosphere is around 80% nitrogen so usage can't be restricted, very inexpensive to purify, doesn't consume resources needed elsewhere (ie medically)
* Painless and humane: the victim just goes to sleep. They may become giddy beforehand
* No risk of leaks or poisoning as long as the areas around the chamber are open to the outside air... the chamber needs only be moderately airtight
Ideally this would be the time to reflect that perhaps, after numerous proven instances where innocent people were put to death or narrowly avoided it with a death-row exoneration, that a 21st century civilized society should abandon this barbaric practice, but if saner heads don't prevail at least there is this ideal method of it.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
The guillotine was originally adopted by the French as an evolved and humane method for taking a human life and, considering what we've seen with alternative methods this past century, I have to agree: It's fast, relatively painless (quite possibly completely painless when one considers the shock reaction of the body,) somewhat messy, but has great symbolic and even theatrical value. Granted, the upper classes world-wide hate this device with a fearful passion, but that is actually part of its value.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
If you guys attach one with duct tape to every missile you shoot at foreign country, your death rows would be empty in a few days ....
Win/Win ?
Head ripping off is considered a most humane, swift and painless method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfsMMVgIToA
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
It has been proven (as if it needed to be) that we've executed an innocent person.
http://www.theatlantic.com/nat...
Any idea that you can "humanely" murder someone is a damned lie.
Moreover, remember the Central Park jogger case? Where they rounded up five minority scapegoats and said they brutally raped a pretty white girl? Everyone, including Donald Trump himself, was rallying to execute these kids. Now, it turns out they were all innocent. They spent 15 years of their lives in jail and they were LUCKY because they weren't executed. They had all of their primes taken away from them but they still get to live what's left.
The death penalty is for revenge, not justice. And the ones who pay the price when we're wrong isn't the prosecutors. Life in jail means innocent people have a chance. Death penalty removes that chance and replaces it with a false sense of faith in the system.
Or how about we stop this barbaric practice? It's 2015. We're not living in the fucking middle ages anymore.
What the fuck is wrong with Americans, I swear.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
Heroin overdose (like 700 mg). No shortage of that drug (just check your evidence locker), certainly not painful - you nod off and don't wake up, easy to administrate, only downside is it's not all that quick.
But justice in the USA is mainly about revenge. Legal types even have a fancy name for it: "retribution." Protecting society is a secondary purpose, but that doesn't require the death penalty. It only requires keeping people locked up until they are no longer a danger, but we can't even get that right.
If the main purpose of justice were rehabilitation, there would be no killing in the name of justice, and people wouldn't come out of prisons more dangerous to society than when they went in. And prisons would be much nicer places, more like hospitals or universities than like dungeons.
Unfortunately, we are not a very smart nation.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Yes, DiSKiLLeR, why don't we take death more seriously?
Now that's a sign of Idiocracy! It's only benign if you are one of the people the dictator wants to keep happy. Ferdinand Marcos was a "benign dictator" for years until he started treating the right people the same way he was treating the wrong people. Robert Mugabe was seen as that for a long time too.
I challenge you to find one dictator of the 20th century who didn't have people killed without trial.
Oh, but this time it will be special will it? How? What will rolling back to the days of King John improve?
If the nine jurors that rendered the verdict had to compose the firing squad, I would feel somewhat better about the death penalty.
Face it: Yes, it is wrong to kill any human being. Some people, however, have committed crimes so heinous that they no longer qualify as human beings, just because they happen to have a particular DNA sequence.
.. and some people decide that's because they don't believe in the same god, don't accept the same society rules, are homosexuals, ..
constant search for a humane means of taking a human life
There is no such thing. Either you accept the fact that by killing someone you leaving the humane domain, or you renounce killing people.
I'd prefer americans to stop that archaic and illogical practice.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
http://www.innocenceproject.or...
By definition there is no humane way to take a human life. Stop trying to solve paradoxical word problems and actually deal with the issues that cause aberrant behavior.
Every example I've seen of someone executed "who was innocent" has been scum otherwise. Certainly, they may have been innocent of that specific crime, but they've generally been worthless wastes of human flesh causing misery to the people around them for their entire lives.
And even IF they were perfectly innocent people, so what, really? This world is infested with 7 billion people. They're not precious snowflakes, they're utterly, completely, expendable. We cheerfully will cut out healthy tissue to excise a tumor; if we occasionally sweep up a non-scum person, really, so what as long as the bulk of bad guys are correctly executed.
Oh, and to the original point? Gravity's free. Put them in a cement 100' silo with a stair to the top. Either they starve to death, or jump off the top. Either way, it's toxin-free, zero-cost, energy-efficient, and afterwards crows get to eat, so it's green too.
-Styopa
Justice has several purposes. Deterrance, protection, rehabilitation and 'retribution' - providing comfort to the victims. The problem is that there is another very negative element too: Collective vengence. The social desire to see those who offend society made to suffer. Worse, this can be counterproductive to the rehabilitation role: Programs aimed at educating prisoners are widely seen as 'soft on crime,' while there is widespread support for any policy that increases the difficulty released prisoners face in finding housing and employment. In large part due to this attitude, the prison system in many countries has turned into an industrial-scale system for taking minor offenders as input and turning them into hardened criminals with gang connections who, upon release, find themselves effectively unemployable and thus with a strong incentive to turn to serious crime.
The deterrance aspect only works for crimes in which the offender knows beforehand that they have a significent chance of getting caught.
That's what this is all about - chasing the "revenge" vote where it's more important for justice to be seen to be done instead of actually done. Such folk would be much happier with the Chinese system of a more than a 99% conviction rate.
But do we really want to go that way? Letting the state have that much power sets things up for the execution of people who annoy the state instead of commit what we normally see as capital crimes.
False dichotomy. You are asserting that the option is to execute or parole after some maximum term. You are intentionally neglecting the option of life in prison without the chance of parole. Your argument is rendered almost entirely moot by such a sentencing option.
Rhapsody in Numbers
I believe you need to read Rosseau. There is something called "The Social Contract", which is something of a "shrink wrap license" you agree to by being born
We have gone over this time and time again that EULAs are unenforceable. therefore Rosseaus "social contract" is bunk.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
There is something called "The Social Contract", which is something of a "shrink wrap license" you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
Ridiculous. You can't agree to anything just by being born; you aren't even sentient at that point. There is no meeting of the minds, no clear agreement. If this so-called "social contract" existed, it would be a contract of adhesion which no human being in history ever explicitly agreed to, and any competent court would throw it out with prejudice after a cursory hearing.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The USA is the only G7 country that still executes people and they don't care if it's a woman, a juvenile, or someone with autism. The only other countries that execute people with the gusto of the USA are China, Iran, and North Korea. Instead of trying to come up with new methods the US should be phasing out this barbaric practice.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Co2 *AND* O2 Displacement
Is without much doubt at all, the most peaceful/painless/cheap(vs drugs) way to end life... That they don't use it today, is only because they wish it not to be a painless experience.
I am pro-death penalty, and imo if it's beyond a reasonable doubt, without a doubt... It shouldn't be quick and painless but drawn out and broadcast as a true deterrent to those who might think of following in 'those footsteps'.
If a someone released from prison murders again then it's the State that failed to rehabilitate. Civilized countries like Norway have a very low recidivism rate because their justice system isn't about revenge it's about helping people who are mentally disturbed. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
1. It gets the deranged out of our society.
2. Their life to that point is effectively over.
3. We avoid all the problems with execution.
4. Considering that the only countries that would take them would probably enslave them, they'll die anyway.
False dichotomy. You are asserting that the option is to execute or parole after some maximum term. You are intentionally neglecting the option of life in prison without the chance of parole. Your argument is rendered almost entirely moot by such a sentencing option.
The following countries have abolished "Life without parole":
Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brasil, Cape Verde, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Kosovo, Macau China, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Congo, Serbia, Spain, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Venezuela
The following countries have life sentences, but have mandatory consideration for parole after some set period:
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Caech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Georgia, Greece, India, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Republic of China, Turkey
So no, the argument is not "moot".
> you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
I have no doubt you actually believe that horseshit. That statement makes some of the more hilarious proclaimations Christians are so fond of saying seem rational and reasonable in comparison.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Ridiculous. You can't agree to anything just by being born; you aren't even sentient at that point. There is no meeting of the minds, no clear agreement. If this so-called "social contract" existed, it would be a contract of adhesion which no human being in history ever explicitly agreed to, and any competent court would throw it out with prejudice after a cursory hearing.
Try using that argument to opt out of the "income tax" portion of the social contract.
Good old-fashioned inhaled Ether. The anesthetic properties preclude the possibility of pain, and increasing concentrations will cause sedation, unconsciousness and then respiratory paralysis (death). Literally painless. Just have to be sure the gas chamber doesn't accidentally explode.
Execution is not a deterrent because they take place behind walls and virtually no one sees them. Out of sight, out of mind. If they are going to execute people, then do it in the public square in a way that shocks people (hanging, guillotine, etc). Couple that with executing prosecutors and cops who through malice or complete incompetence cause an innocent person to be executed. Like as not, the latter will reduce to an absolute minimum the former. And when an execution does happen, people will be shown the consequences if they murder in no uncertain terms.
If you don't do it in public, then don't execute people. Without being a real deterrent it serves no purpose and is more merciful than keeping them in a cage (but for fuck's sake, stop giving them TVs and other shit that makes the time go fast).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Executions are by no means done the most humane way, nor is anyone attempting to do them the most humane way. They're done the most telegenic way, so as not to bother the audience: Having your butt stuffed with cotton *before* being executed is not humane, but hey, that way no shit comes out when they kill you, and you die clean and smelling great !
To me, humane (if there is a "humane" way to kill people) would be quick and painless. Drugs or electrocution aren't. I'm fairly sure guillotine is the most reliably quick and painless way, but the blood ! You almost feel like you just killed someone !
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
That is categorically not what the "social contract" means. The "social contract" is an expression that one must suspend some "natural rights" (i.e. the freedom to "do whatever you want") in order to obtain the benefits of living in a society (i.e. to protect rights that need social defense). Like any contract, it's one that must be entered into consciously, not by birth or decree; the perversion of such a "contract" to mean one inherits it by birth is a road to domination and stagnation. Being born conveys only liberties, not responsibilities. Being a member of a community conveys both. It is up to a person to choose the latter, and it is up to a child's guardians to convey the benefits and consequences of such a contract. And it is up to every person to negotiate the social fluidity of all of these.
Society's rules are also not static, and they typically only change through rebellion. This process can be peaceful or bloody, just or unjust, depending on the rules and the rebellion. The most just and peaceful evolution comes from a confluence of evolving "social contract" that challenges outdated or unwarranted rules; the least comes from the collision of an unflinching status quo with an unflinching reality. Wars are often fought, in either case, and often the "social contract" is discarded wholly in the process.
The people you listed above, had they been freed, elderly and in a different world? They would have little purchase to do any further harm. That isn't to say there is no reason to guard against a resurgence of past monstrosity, and it isn't even to say that the world isn't better absent some of the worst monsters. But the world changes—nay, people change the world—and tossing monsters into a world that was once their own but isn't any longer... doesn't give them a lot of leeway.
The "social contract" is a fiction created by the elite to keep the rest of us in line. It's something to which we are all supposed to accede, yet it's only enforceable one way. Rich men don't go to jail unless they harm other rich men or have in some other way broken the elite's kleptocratic rules in some way.
The (very few) times in our history when there has been something like a working social contract were periods when there were grass roots movements to enforce those rules. Labor unions, the civil rights and women's movements of the 20th century were a few such institutions.
And make no mistake: the rapidly metastasizing surveillance state is nothing more than an effort to make sure such institutions can never again exist.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The only real term in a "social contract" is "Society (i.e. the government) may change the terms of this contract in any way, at any time, prospectively or retrospectively, and the individuals all remain bound by it."
In other words, it's bunk.
Honest question, since there's a list of nazis up above: if an elderly Adolf Hitler were forced to live in prison for 50 years and released into modern life, what more harm could he do?
I dare say he could produce an astonishingly smelly old man diaper.
There are a lot of posts here and elsewhere saying that we should "just stop," that capital punishment is immoral and should be abolished forever.
Is ANY kind of punishment moral and justified?
Is it logical that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the offense?
How do you decide what is the most severe form of punishment that is moral and justified, if punishment of any kind is moral and justified?
Indonesia is about to execute a bunch of people, including two Australians, which is big news in Australia. They use the firing squad approach, and in the executions they carried out in January, using some 20 people firing at once - some with blanks and some with real, so the people never know if they really killed someone or not. Even still - the death is by no means quick., the fastest death by firing squad was six minutes. Others took far longer to bleed out or have internal organ failure.
It's especially big news in Australia at the moment because the two Australians (charge: drug trafficking in 2005) to be executed any day now are generally regarded by all as fully remorseful and fully reformed - even by the people executing them. Which begs the question - what's the point of a prison system based on reform if you just kill people even if they actually do reform? The two in question are said to be so well regarded in the prison they're in that other inmates have volunteered to stand in for them an be executed in their place.
The real pity here is that they're going to be executed not because of their crimes but because Indonesia's government wants to show its people how they can stand up to international pressure (something the majority of Indonesians want to see them do). So basically, they're going to be killed for political purposes, not because of their crime. That's no reason to execute someone.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favour of drug traffickers - but their "victims" all chose to take drugs, too.Compare that to someone who actively was involved in the Bali terrorist bombings a few years ago - I'm talking physically carried the actual bombs to the actual night club where 202 people were killed and many more mained - not just someone peripherally involved - and that guy has been released from prison in Indonesia already. But foreign drug traffickers? No - they get killed.
The funny thing is that stuff like the constitutions of democracies are the closest real thing to actual social contracts. But the people who speak of social contracts tend to ignore that stuff.
Showing zero remorse for doing it is despicable.
I completely agree...but isn't this what you are also doing too? Wanting to kill someone while showing zero remorse about doing so? If you are going to argue for the death penalty a far better argument is to say that it removes any possibility that the person can ever re-offend and thus protects society. The problem is that, as practiced in the US, this is very hard to argue. Those convicted are held in prison for a decade or longer and even then there are a shockingly high percentage whose convictions are quashed when carefully examined.
If you want to argue for the death penalty then you need to restrict it to cases where the evidence is overwhelming and you need to make it rapid. Even then mistakes will be made which is why I have so much trouble with the concept. About the only time I would think that it is justified is when you have someone whom you cannot safely imprison e.g. the IRA terrorists in the 1980/90s who used their contacts with the terror organization to threaten guards' families unless they got special treatment while in prison: something which almost lead to their escape. In these cases I would argue that the need to protect society from extremely dangerous criminals might make it justifiable but I'd still have concerns.
Well, even with the "insane" appeal process, innocents still get executed. So apparently it's still not thorough enough to provide true justice.
That is the failure of a criminal justice system based upon punishment and not rehabilitation. With a system based purely on rehabilitation, with specific crimes where risk of server consequence is high, no rehabilitation, no release. That becomes much more feasible where detention conditions are much more humane and the concern is protecting the public, whilst still endeavouring to achieve rehabilitation.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The "social contract" is a fiction created by the elite to keep the rest of us in line. It's something to which we are all supposed to accede, yet it's only enforceable one way. Rich men don't go to jail unless they harm other rich men or have in some other way broken the elite's kleptocratic rules in some way.
Very much this. A more elaborate form is "It is God's will", thereby neatly cutting of any avenue of discussion or escape, especially if the religion in question is executing people rejecting it.
And make no mistake: the rapidly metastasizing surveillance state is nothing more than an effort to make sure such institutions can never again exist.
I fully agree. The surveillance-states currently being busily established and justified with lies, lies and more lies are motivated by one thing: Those in power are terribly afraid of those they are supposed to serve.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
As soon as you do it, every European manufacturer of your drug of choice will be forced to stop all exports to US.
I need a creditable cite for that number. Best guess estimates I can find from anywhere that is not pushing an agenda is a measly 50 innocents and they specifically admit that is incorrect because it is just a transference of the 4% of people who on death row end up getting their sentence overturned or converted to life in prison.
Hell, Wikipedia only lays claim that 10 specific people are thought to have been wrongly put to death with another 39 carried out in the face of evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Of course I'm not sure what they think is evidence but I do not really care. There are 52 separate jurisdictions (with two being the same but listed separately due to separate branches of authority) capable of sentencing someone to death in the US and over the last 4 decades all they can come up with is 49 people who might have been innocent and 10 that actually were. That is an extremely low rate if you ask me.
That's a very enlightening description and it covers the obvious point of calling this thing a "social contract" rather than say a "social mandate" or a "social duty". But what I think is particular interesting about the grandparent post is the perversion of "agreement" to mean merely being born or not trying hard enough to escape execution. At that point, every evil no matter how vile is condoned as long as it has the fig leaf of law allowing it.
By leaving him in prison, we avoid creating provocation that might induce the impulsive with legitimate grievances to kill Hitler. I'd hate for a sixteen year old whose grandmother died in the camps to spend some time in jail for shooting Hitler or worse. And given that there's no compelling reason of justice to cut short Hitler's sentence, I think this concern reasonable.
Honest question, since there's a list of nazis up above: if an elderly Adolf Hitler were forced to live in prison for 50 years and released into modern life, what more harm could he do?
I dare say he could produce an astonishingly smelly old man diaper.
In a Machiavellian sense, he could be used, for example, as a figurehead to drum up support from the people who he was able to drum up support from before, in order to follow a political agenda. He could also be used in a campaign of renewed anti-semitism, and he could function as the Nazi equivalent of Nelson Mandela when he was jailed for his statements (which he would be, in Germany). At which point he could be a martyr. He could also be assassinated via a false flag operation in order to create a martyr. If he weren't senile, he could run for Chancellor - there's precedent for ancient men as Chancellor: Konrad Adenauer, born in 1876, was elected in 1949 at the age of 73, and served until 1969, when he was aged 87.
I could think of many dozens of ways he could himself cause trouble, and I can think of many more dozens of ways he could be symbolically used by someone else to cause trouble. Who would have thought a presumptive nobody like Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria could have been used to touch off WW I? And Hitler would have not really been a presumptive nobody, had be been released under the conditions you imply.
I would think spending 50 years contemplating their murderous deeds would be much harsher punishment than execution. By your reasoning George W.H. Bush and George W. Bush, as recently examples, should have been executed as well for their murderous deeds.
A sociopath would spend that 50 years plotting revenge upon release, and how best to play "the reformed person who had spent that 50 years contemplating their murderous deeds" to the parole board in order to get out so they could enact that revenge.
As far as the Bush's go: you only go to prison for your deeds if you lose, and you can't lose if you can't be held accountable, and you can't be held accountable, as the leader of a country, unless you acknowledge being subject to the World Court (which the U.S. does not, for its citizens). And if you are held accountable in the U.S., you either resign and get immediately pardoned by your hand-picked successor, or you wait until the next president immediately after you pardons you, so that they, too, will not be held accountable for their actions in office. So if it had been an issue, Obama would have pardoned the last one, so that whoever is elected after him would pardon him. It's a well understood "gentleman's agreement" to "pay it forward".
That is the failure of a criminal justice system based upon punishment and not rehabilitation. With a system based purely on rehabilitation, with specific crimes where risk of server consequence is high, no rehabilitation, no release. That becomes much more feasible where detention conditions are much more humane and the concern is protecting the public, whilst still endeavouring to achieve rehabilitation.
Recidivism rates, as of 2014, http://www.nij.gov/topics/corr...
One year: 56.7%
Three year: 67.8%
Five year: 76.6%
Percentage of adult resident population in prison: 0.97%
Perhaps we could rehabilitate them with some reasonable expectation of being able to be reintegrated into society, by giving them blue collar factory jobs, if we hadn't shipped all those jobs offshore.
The first time Hitler tried to seize power in Germany via a coup, he was arrested and used his trial to gain publicity, and rallied a lot of people towards his cause while he was in prison.
Which by the way, 20 people died in his coup attempt, something that would probably have made him eligible for the death penalty in the US (felony-murder doctrine) which had he been executed, it would have averted his eventual reign which itself lead to WWII.
I'm with you -- certain heinous crimes deserve the death penalty. However:
In many cases, we cannot be certain that the individual who has been judged guilty, actually is. We know from the various exoneration projects, where convicted death row inmates have been proven innocent with more advanced forensic techniques (DNA, etc.) that the system regularly makes horrific errors, sentencing the innocent to death. Even just a cursory understanding of how our justice system works will make any reasonable person aware that it is error-prone. And we must not put people who are not actually guilty to death. Ever.
Consequently, this is my position: Until or unless technology allows us to unequivocally, zero-possible-doubt, 100% certain determine actual guilt of the actual crime they are being tried for, we cannot afford to engage in killing as punishment without becoming the very worst kind of criminals ourselves.
So as things stand right now, I am solidly against any use of the death penalty.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.