Should there be the death penalty?

[The_Doc_Man]

Fifty2One - bringing back bread and circuses, I see...

charge admission to witness the sentence being delivered and justice being rendered.

Would we rate that as G, PG13, PG17, R, or X ?

It would also serve as a deterrent for those who might be dissuaded from certain deeds.

Perhaps, but we need to assure that the perp isn't seeking notoriety, such as those whack-jobs from the Middle East who like to blow up markets and schools to publicize their causes.

Public dismemberment (specifically but not limited to child molesters and rapists) could also be included to round out the event on public execution night.

While we are at it, how about organ harvesting from those whom we would rather do without? Heaven knows there aren't enough cornea, kidney, heart, and lung transplant donors to go around. Of course, due to requirements of organ preparation and preservation, that might be a case of not being quite so public.

I rather fancy Kurt Vonnegut's method of execution from Cat's Cradle - the HOOK. A 10-foot-long fishhook, the perp is the bait, and you go trolling for whales. (OK, Kurt didn't go trolling for whales, that part was my contributions.)

 

[yupstrips01]

Politics, quality of legal counsel and the jurisdiction where a crime is committed are more often the determining factors in a death penalty case than the facts of the crime itself. The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 22,000 homicides committed every year approximately 100 people or less are sentenced to death.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Although I'm not sure if you are interested in this topic you have seen necessary to resurrect, I suggest all supporters of the death penalty should be put on a list, where one person a year is placed on death row, and sentenced to death.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[ColinEssex]

Although I'm not sure if you are interested in this topic you have seen necessary to resurrect, I suggest all supporters of the death penalty should be put on a list, where one person a year is placed on death row, and sentenced to death.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Why? I fail to see your reasoning here.

Col

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

The problem with the death penalty is that a small proportion of people that are executed are actually innocent. This is due to corrupt police officials, test procedures which give incorrect results to name but two. If you introduce a significant risk of death to some innocent person who supports the death penalty then they might well think about the death penalty in a different light.

 

[NauticalGent]

Interesting topic and remarks. Is pre-meditated murder ever "right"? Hell, you cant even get 100% of the people to agree on the definition of that word.

I have no love for the "state" and will question every action it makes. That being said, I do not want to be financially responsible for housing and feeding criminals who can seem to live with others without hurting or wronging them.

Don't have an answer except maybe exile, but that would open a whole new set of discussions.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Let's not forget that Australia was once a penal colony. Exile to 'roo land - what a thought! Not to mention Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - where criminal exile meant you got sent to the moon on a one-way ticket, and if you didn't toe the line, you don't get such amenities as air, water, or food. You know, ... simple stuff.

 

[Rx_]

Great point mate! (instead of in-mate, is that where the term 'ello Mate came from?)
Never mind, in the US, we have a place called Wyoming.

In one point of biblical times, they were given a chance to go to a Sanctuary. They had to live under the rules of the priests. They were allowed to till fields and tend livestock within 300 rods of the Sanctuary.
They basically lived a simple life of labor dedicated to help the poor.

if they were expelled for not following the rules, or if they ran away:
Anyone who killed them would not face prosecution. In other words, they were no longer protected under the law.
This could be a family member, a bounty hunter paid by he community, or just people who liked to hunt for sport.

Bottom line, they were free and protected to live a life to help others within the boundaries of a sanctuary. But, if they chose not to do that, then it was not the government that executed them.

The government did not pay for the captivity. I think in some circumstance they might be allowed to serve in foreign wars if they didn't like the religious life-style.

Basically, the government wasn't involved either way.

One historian discussed how the bounty insurance concept came out of this time and somehow made the bounty insurance common-law custom migrated to the UK in early history. When the Romans first invaded and wouldn't pay for the private toll bridges up north, it was bounty hunters insurance that enforced against the Romans as common thieves.
The Romans fell back and considered the idea themselves.
Hadrian wanted a frontier which people could only cross at certain points where enemies and criminals could be arrested, and tolls collected from traders. This was just a general idea. I am not a historian. I just lived a long-long time and play one on the internet.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Along the lines of trying to reduce prison populations in general, Louisiana needed a fiscal disaster to even think about this, but we are starting to revisit laws for simple possession of pot and a few other drugs, where the penalty is confiscation plus a fine - but no jail. State and local prisons are considering this due to the insanity of Bobby Jindal's fiscally irresponsible budgeting practices that were akin to starvation diets. I even voted for Bobby the first time; wasn't so sure on his second term but his opposition wasn't any great option, either. In hindsight, though, I should NEVER have voted for him.

The New Orleans Parish Prison is under a consent decree for overcrowding and the city is trying to save money for housing non-violent inmates who are more of a victim led astray by addiction than a criminal. Simple possession cases fall into that category. On the other hand, the drug makers (such as those who run "meth labs") would NOT be fined for simple possession. I think that with many cities, counties/parishes, and states having their own fiscal nightmares, it won't be long before every part of the country starts to see this kind of spending restriction leading to jail sentence reductions.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I think a responsible approach would be to say that for every person put in jail then their ethnicity should be taken into account. In other words the jail should only contain people in proportion to the ethnicity in the general populace. Therefore, if the local population consists of 30 black people to every hundred white people, then the proportion put into jail should be the same. This would mean police targets would change from taking the easy option of cruising around the black areas and picking on the black people. Now they would have to cruise around the white areas and Nick a similar proportion. A proportional representation Law. I think you would soon start to see some fundamental changes to your laws!

 

[Rx_]

It is easy to miss the point when only focusing on one single element.
http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml
Part of my Technical Education degree included summer sessions with teachers for inmates. There is one major element that has persisted over 50 years.
With more homes raising children without fathers, the number of prisoners has risen.
In this politically correct world, we are not permitted to look at the facts. So, we make up other excuses.
If anyone spent any time in a prison (hopefully to serve the community), they would quickly understand the relationship. If this was purely race based, why do some minorities not have representation in this population? It is more of a cultural element than it is a genetic element.

A study of 404,638 prisoners released:
Justice, fairness and due process is important. Statistics indicate behavior.
Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that resulted in rearrest, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release.
- Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
- Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
- Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.

The increase in violent crimes is directly related to the release of violent criminals. Setting quotas by race instead of by behavior is not a solution.

An ancient system that seemed to work provided an alternative from the government right to execute.
The right of asylum according to the Council of Orleans in 511, in the presence of Clovis I, asylum was granted to anyone who took refuge in a church, in its dependences, or in the house of a bishop. This protection was given to murderers and thieves. Even in the UK, by the Norman era after 1066, there had evolved two kinds of sanctuary licensed by the King.
This concept was based on Greek, Egyptian, and biblical times in many parts of the world over huge periods of time.
Basically a convicted person could stay in the church. There were conditions of work to help the poor, sick or others in need.
Instead of the State executing someone, they had an option to stay in the boundaries of an estate to assist the public good.
Those who chose to leave and go outside the boundaries were not protected under the law. Bounty hunters or others could hunt them down as an escaped convicted criminal.

Uberize the criminal system? Perhaps this has merit in today's broken system.

 

[Alc]

To my mind, the death penalty has limited effect as a deterrent. yes, it stops those offenders from reoffending, but that's all. If you don't believe in an afterlife, it really is just an end to all suffering.

I'd much rather have anyone who would have been sentenced to death perform some necessary but unenviable task to help society. For example, working with sewage. This way, they 'pay' for their keep, they suffer for far longer than if they were just killed and it removes the worry of an innocent person being put to death only to have it turn out that they were not guilty.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Well, to be technical, the death penalty exists in Nature. Waddle your fat arse in front of a hungry predator. THAT will teach you to be disrespectful to Mother Nature!

(The "fat arse" comment was NOT directed to a specific person - and certainly not at Alc, the previous poster.)

 

[Vassago]

That's not a death penalty. If it's a hungry predator, it's survival. Even if the predator attacked due to provocation and not hunger, it's still not a death penalty. Thankfully, we are not animals and have the ability to use rational thought. We can determine if something waddling their fat arse in front of us is a threat much better than the "lesser" life on Earth.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But then again, there ARE the "Darwin Awards" - noted for people who commit the ultimate transgression - doing anything dangerous (not limited to driving) while stupid.

Just the other day I saw a video on someone who tried to rob a Gun and Pawn shop in Georgia. It SAYS on the store sign, this is a place that has guns. Did he honestly think that the store personnel would NOT be carrying? Two 9 mm slugs answered that for him. Comments were disabled on the video or I would have nominated him for a "true" Darwin Award.

 

[Vassago]

Yes! Survival of the fittest, for sure.

 

[Galaxiom]

There is one major element that has persisted over 50 years.
With more homes raising children without fathers, the number of prisoners has risen.
In this politically correct world, we are not permitted to look at the facts. So, we make up other excuses.

Correlation does not show causation.

The number of homes without fathers has risen over the past fifty years for several reasons. Women now have a choice. Babies are no longer abducted from single mothers by hospitals run by religious institutions. Our society no longer condemns single mothers to destitution.

Meanwhile prisoner number have risen largely due to policies that criminalise recreational drug use.

Sociological research has shown that children of single parent households are no more likely to have problems than those with two parents. Indeed the main issues they face is prejudice from ignorant bigots who try to interpret statistics to back their religious preconceptions.

 

[Vassago]

In other news, people who wear sneakers are more likely to commit murder. It has been found that most murderers wear sneakers during their crimes. We must ban sneakers to prevent the spread of murder.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Over the last 50 years, the number of children being raised without fathers in the home has raised dramatically.

Over the last 50 years, the number of people voting has increased dramatically, nearly doubling.

Over the last 50 years, the number of millionaires has increased dramatically.

Obviously, being raised by a single mother increases both likelihood of voting and career income.

Those make just as much logical sense as RX_'s statistics and conclusion.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I certainly believe that we need to be able to say, "This person is very much like a cancer in our society and must be permanently removed." I also believe that some people, no matter how hard we try, are just uncorrectable. I blame liberals for the trend of "Oh, no, we must not punish a child because that teaches the wrong message, justification of violence." I would never say that you should beat a child bloody and crippled, but careful application of a memorable punishment might sometimes help.

Now, the pragmatic side... unfortunately we don't come with a user's manual when we are born so parents don't always know how to reach the correct level of punishment for a naughty child. Therefore the dilemma is a need to punish but a lack of knowledge as to how much punishment is "correct." We ALSO don't know how to read minds and determine that a given person is a true and unchangeable sociopath for whom summary execution is the only real solution.

I still feel that when the evidence is irrefutable and there is no way that the person should ever be allowed in society, we should give them the option to have a really nice meal, watch their favorite movie, then sedate them fully and harvest ALL of their organs including their still-beating heart. And if they don't choose that option, they deserve the old punishment known as the oubliette, a place in which (as the name suggests in French) they would be forgotten.