Here is a death penalty candidate

[James R]

For anybody who is interested, Syzygys and I had a Formal Debate about the Death penalty some time ago. It can be viewed here:

Formal Debate: Death Penalty - Syzygys vs James R

[Syzygys]

Well you haven't heard mine.

Oh, I bet I have, but go on...

If you kill them (immediate execution), it is impossible to get any societal compensation. You are doing an injustice to the people they have offended.

Well, why don't we ask the victims first? Most would like to get a quick and final solution. Now depends on where one stands on torture, if you want more suffering for the guilty, you might go for the life in prison choice....

the tax payers are charged outrageous taxes.

I told you I have heard it already. This is the "life in prison is cheaper than the DP" argument, and I already addressed above. First, it is only true in silly countries like the USA, second, we could make them cheaper, if that is a concern.

Now if cost bothers you, we could close all prisons too, that would be a cheap solution. Whatever argument people have against the DP, they can be used against ANY punishment. Just think about it for a while...

We need something like Norway, but totatly self-suppporting.

And I want to be 20 again. When we can't find jobs for 10-15 million citizens, sure we won't find for 1-2 million prisoners. I don't think there is any country in the world with a self-supporting prison system. Also, there is a difference just how many % of the population is in jail...

Speaking of Norway, would you give more than 23 years to that serial murderer?

And what do you think the correct punishment would be for the OP's killer?

[Syzygys]

I ran into a book on Aldrich Ames.

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-sp...owViewpoints=1

If you don't know he was a US spy, who betrayed his country not for political or ideological reasons but for money. He didn't kill anyone, but as a result of his actions, several people died, because the Russians executed them when their cover was blown.

This is a simple case when the DP should be used although the criminal didn't kill anyone. White collar crime, treason. DP is a deterrent in white collar crimes. When we start executing Ponzi schemers, and bankers who stole millions, there will be less of them...

Kind of unrelated but funny things about spies: If it is a mole in the US, he is an asshole dirtbag, if he is Russian, who detects to the US, he is a hero.

[Repo Man]

The only person on SciForums who thinks Syzygys has ever "won" a debate about this issue is Syzygys.

[Syzygys]

Thanks for the offtopic interruption...

The only person on SciForums who thinks Syzygys has ever "won" a debate about this issue is Syzygys.

I didn't bring up the debate, and I didn't say I won it, although I did.

Now kindly fuck off!

By the way going back to the OP, this thread is about one particular case, not generally the DP, although I don't necessary mind to go that direction...

[steampunk]

Well, why don't we ask the victims first?

Why not ask Reason? If they don't want any compensation, the government should apply the murderer's compesation to a fund that would help prevent such things. If they just want to kill him, then they become a problem too, because we can create instead a proactive solution that he will invest in preventative measures against crimes like his own.

I told you I have heard it already. This is the "life in prison is cheaper than the DP" argument, and I already addressed above. First, it is only true in silly countries like the USA, second, we could make them cheaper, if that is a concern.

You are wrong. Prisons could cost us zero! Set out to do something and it can be done.

Now if cost bothers you, we could close all prisons too...

I'm not saying that, and if you are suggesting it, it's not a good idea. I would never let a guilty person go free. But, I would reform prisons to make them costless to the taxpayer and provide a true rehabilitation to the prisoner, which would result in them compesating victimes and society (overall not happening today). Punishment will never do that. Never has. Never will. You have to use your logic skills to arrive at that one.

Speaking of Norway, would you give more than 23 years to that serial murderer?

I think Norway has set such a great example, I will stand speachless and listen to wisemen as to what to do. I truley respect their attitude. They have fared much better as a society and treated their people so well, I think I can learn much from them.

And what do you think the correct punishment would be for the OP's killer?

A wall that separtes us from him. He gets a comfortable private bedroom. He gets a job. (I don't care if he drinks a beer at night or smokes a j). I just want him psychologically balanced enough to work, so he can either pay the family of the man he killed or if they don't want it, have that money go to prevention efforts aganst crime.

Here is the fundamental difference between our philosophy on this one:

You are bloodthirsty. You let your emotions overrun your reason. You ultimately will not get the most reasonalbe situation because all you want to do is inflict pain in a careless way.

I on the other hand, want only what is neccessary. I am an efficiency expert. I only want:

• A wall between us, and,
• The most desireable enviroment inside it to promote highest level of societal compensation.

I once used to play chess with an expert. He taught me alot of things. Everytime I lost, I won, because I learned a new strategy. One time I tried to do exactly what he did, move for move. Try and do that with an expert chess player. Do not become what you hate, you will sink into a hole of misery and debt. Instead of letting what you hate lead you, why don't you lead with the answer?

[Tiassa]

And why can't a case/solution be both?

There is a theoretical possibility that such a case could happen. Generally speaking, however, justice disappoints vendetta, and vendetta exceeds justice.

Look to the parts of the world that still suffer blood feuds. Vendetta has only dug those societies deeper into the ditch.

In the end, justice strives to be objective. Vendetta is purely subjective.

And why would that be a problem? If only murderers can kill...

Justice is also a moral question. Perhaps we should not expect you to understand.

By the way we are here talking about one specific case, not generally. But you tell me about 5 decades in prison and how does that effect the psyche....

Poorly. Then again, as people are generally aware, I'm not thrilled with our prison system, anyway.

[steampunk]

Look to the parts of the world that still suffer blood feuds. Vendetta has only dug those societies deeper into the ditch.

I remember reading old Scadinavian literature. The Eddas and other things. I remember reading something, somewhere, I can't rememeber exact, about how families would end up in these huge blood fueds. One of the solutions was to create the concept: Outlander. The person was not killed, instead their life was spared. This was the best prevention against the chain reaction of blood fueding. A person got a second chance as well, because they could roam other lands and make something of themself. Eric the Red was an Outlander. It seems they have evolved this philosphy in Norway to the modern age. Prisoners are still an Outlander, but they go to a walled society. But, like being an Outlander in the ancient times, they weren't punished either. So, their prisons can truely be rehabilitative.

[Aqueous Id]

Well, I advocate the death penalty in other crimes, like treason, severe body damage to multiple people, serial rapist, white collar crimes when the monetary damage is very high, etc.

I think you can get satisfaction like that in China, Iran, Syria, and maybe half a dozen to a dozen countries thereabouts.

So your argument that I only want in against murderers doesn't stand

You mean you don't care whether the executed person committed murder or not, so my assumption that you did is moot.

and the soldier analogy is simply just flawed, because there are different rules in wartime...

So the rules of military law are to be left as they are, but the rules of criminal law are to be made more severe? I think that gets us back to square 1.

By the way, if a government official knowingly takes his country to war under false pretenses, that is treason and should be punished by death. Can you find cases from the not so distant past???

Has the identity been disclosed of the government official who faked the interrogation with the Iraqi colonel, resulting in a false report of WMDs (the evidence Colin Powell took to the UN)? I've forgotten, it's been so long.

As you criminalize more, and especially as you expand the ways people can be legally executed, the more desperate perpetrators become, and the greater the likelihood they will execute witnesses.

[Aqueous Id]

This is the "life in prison is cheaper than the DP" argument, and I already addressed above. First, it is only true in silly countries like the USA,

Last I checked the US was 3rd behind China and Iran in terms of per capita incarceration and death penalties. That's hardly silly.

second, we could make them cheaper, if that is a concern.

Prison is a place "of punishment" not "for punishment", so you can't cut cost in a punitive way. Prisoners are legally classified as "persons" and therefore protected under the 14th Amendment, so they can not be subjected to "cruel and unusual punishments" (5th Amendment). This means you have to provide all prisoners adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation and hygiene, medical care and protection from violence perpetrated by other prisoners or guards. This has been laid out more precisely in Supreme Court decisions, where prisoners have successfully sued for serious harm done to them in prison. (Crimes you would execute their perpetrators for). These Supreme Court decisions form a body of rules that affect the minimum cost of incarceration. Most prisons are already operating below those requirements and thus they are routinely dragged into court for enforcement. Most recently was the State of California, which was effectively executing prisoners by lack of safe housing and denial of medical care.

[Asguard]

I wonder about the per capita incarceration rate, the cost per prisioner and per capita and the offender rates US vs Norway. I think they would surprise those who can't see past the blood in there eyes

[Aqueous Id]

Prisons could cost us zero!

To lower the cost, you need to reduce the amount of time people are serving, provide more probation and parole and lighter sentences.

I would never let a guilty person go free.

I think it was Thurgood Marshall who said "it is better to let 99 guilty men go free than to condemn 1 innocent man". Today, we find that the zeal to "lock 'em up and throw away the key" has reversed that ideal, leaving many innocent people to face life or even the death penalty, unless they happened to leave their DNA behind, and even then in many cases they will have served decades.

But, I would reform prisons to make them costless to the taxpayer

Reform will make prison costs higher, because you will have to tear down all the hell holes and death pits that the courts have written injunctions against, that still operate. You'll have to treat vile and dangerous men with a minimal degree of humanity, and it will double costs. Plus you probably won't have the stomach for it.

and provide a true rehabilitation to the prisoner, which would result in them compesating victimes and society (overall not happening today). Punishment will never do that.

Are you aware that most prisoners must work for no pay, with none of the protections (eg OSHA) afforded free people, and yet they usually get no credit for this towards winning parole? The idea is not to rehabilitate them, but to run the prison from free labor. It's another reason you won't cut cost. Unless you're planning to pay your prison laborers they can't even pay to support their own families, much less the crime victims. The only way you can expect them to earn money is to release them. However, they will come back to a world penniless and without any useful skills, because prisons can't afford to prepare them for reentry, and becaue no one wants to hire them. Cost, you see, never was an objective. Not in the mind of the criminal and not in the mind of the State.

I think Norway has set such a great example

Northern and Western Europe seems to have worked though the idea of retribution and they seem to worry more about fundamental fairness, civil rights, humane treatment and rehabilitation of their prisoners.

A wall that separtes us from him. He gets a comfortable private bedroom. He gets a job. (I don't care if he drinks a beer at night or smokes a j). I just want him psychologically balanced enough to work, so he can either pay the family of the man he killed or if they don't want it, have that money go to prevention efforts aganst crime.

That would be fundamentally opposite of the punishments in the US. Wherever there is a wall, there will be violence, cruelty and neglect because you can't see what's being done to these people, and the guards know it. I assure you they will never get a comfortable private bedroom. That alone will never happen.

• A wall between us, and,
• The most desireable enviroment inside it to promote highest level of societal compensation.

I guess those are noble ideals, but no prison system will agree to it because of cost, and because they want no outside investigations or involvement. As for the wall: until when? Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of paroles are denied, even for model prisoners?

[leopold]

. . . he will be insane in 20 years, . . .

exactly.
i would then put it before the world for all to see.

A bullet to the head would be way more merciful, . . .

what mercy did he show his victim?

[Bells]

what mercy did he show his victim?

So society and the justice system should lower its standards and morals by having the same standards as criminals have?

There's a good place you want to see society head to.

I mean hell! Why even bother with a trial? Just take them out back and shoot them!

[Syzygys]

So society and the justice system should lower its standards and morals by having the same standards as criminals have?

Sure, why not? Shouldn't it be an EVEN playing field? So criminals are allowed to kill, do certain things and prosecution has to go by the book??

In the recent episode of The Firm, the only evidence (a hard disk) was obtained by stealing it. The judge threw it out, and the indirect serial killer wasn't prosecuted. So criminals can steal/kill, the police can not steal evidence.

Is that fair in your book?

[Syzygys]

justice disappoints vendetta, and vendetta exceeds justice.

You like the distinguish between them as there was a clear line. There isn't. But just call it PAYBACK, if you have a problem with vendetta. After all you want to get paid for your work, so why not for your crime?

But here is another argument for you:

Why don't you call a life in prison sentence a vendetta? I say it is vendetta, and you can not argue against it, because as I mentioned above, there is no clear line.

Also, who says vendetta is wrong? You, and I say the opposite. Who is right? You are basicly just LABELING the death penalty, instead of making a decent argument.

[Syzygys]

Why not ask Reason?

I did. I represent reason. All my arguments has been logical and factual.

Prisons could cost us zero!

And I could be 20 again. In the maintime the prison industry is a huge business.

I'm not saying that, and if you are suggesting it, it's not a good idea.

It logically follows from your argument.

I would never let a guilty person go free.

But we agreed that most of the time we can not be 100% sure, and we should err on the safe side. Thus let's not imprison innocents.

You are bloodthirsty.

So is the murderer. By the way, you are just labeling here, that is not an argument.

You let your emotions overrun your reason.

Hell not. Here is my TLR opinion on the DP: Instead of inhumanly torturing a murderer with decades in prison, let's quickly and painlessly execute him in a legally cheap way, donate his body organs to good citizens so at least the victim's family can see something good outcome of the crime, get a quick closure and society wins something out of the deal.

If you can find any unreasonable argument in that point it out.

[Syzygys]

exactly.
i would then put it before the world for all to see.
what mercy did he show his victim?

Alright, so are you then from the super sadist side?? Because I can be with you on that one, and even have better ideas.

If you want to torture the criminal, you don't have to do it passively using time. Just do it actively, pliers to his balls or just taze him, for 3 hours a day, after a month we are done with the torture and can happily execute him.

You see, the word is effectiveness. Don't be a pussy when it goes to torture...

[Syzygys]

There are really no arguments in your post, but I have the time, so let's play...

I think you can get satisfaction like that in China, Iran, Syria, and maybe half a dozen to a dozen countries thereabouts.

Just as much, as you get by incarcerating the most people both in absolute and relative numbers on Earth.

You mean you don't care whether the executed person committed murder or not,

What I care about is GUILT. And the point was that there are other crimes that are/should be punished by the DP, not just murder.

So the rules of military law are to be left as they are, but the rules of criminal law are to be made more severe?

This is a different issue, but who is to say that civil laws can not be more strict than military law?

As you criminalize more, and especially as you expand the ways people can be legally executed, the more desperate perpetrators become, and the greater the likelihood they will execute witnesses.

Not really true, let's just use a contra example of white collar crimes. A white collar criminal won't execute anybody just because monetary fraud can have the DP.
The deterrent effect only works with crimes that are planned ahead and if the criminal also have an economic choice. You see a banker has most likely a good living, so risking the DP can be a deterrent for him against fraud, unlike a very poor person robbing a bank.

[Syzygys]

I think it was Thurgood Marshall who said "it is better to let 99 guilty men go free than to condemn 1 innocent man".

It is a famous quote, but not a good idea. Nothing is perfect, but in other things in life we have no problem dealing with imperfection, we just look at it as the cost of doing business.

A simple example: transportation. About 32 THOUSAND people die on the roads EACH YEAR in the USA. We agree that they are mostly innocents, although I am sure quite a few of them are jerks. Anyway, let's say if we lowered the speed limit to 20 mph EVERYWHERE, we could save 25K lifes. There would still be death on the roads, just much less.

Now, are we willing to do that? Of course not! Nobody wants to drive from NYC to Chicago by 20 mph. I don't even mention a cross country trip. So for doing transportation as fast as possible, we are alright with letting 25K people die each year. Because we want to have things fast.

So if we want to have justice, we just have to expect the possibility that occasionally sometimes the wrong person gets punished. The solution is to raise the safeguards not to throw the kid out with the water....Are there innocent people in prison? Sure, probably thousands. Do we close all prisons and let everybody go? Of course not, but that is what the anti-DP argument tells us...

Another already quoted example is surgeries. They can be dangerous and lots of patients die during them, but we do them anyway, we just accept the risk, and try to do them better.