Capital punishment: How should it be applied?

[Lilhigbee]

Capital punishment: How should it be applied? LIBERALLY!!

 

[Brutus57]

How should capital punishment be administered????

Brutus Out

 

[Slobray]

Swiftly, equally and with the most cost effectively way possible.

The most cost effective way I can think of would be hanging with a 3/16" ... 1/4" (or similar size) steel cable: Quick, effective, small initial investment (less than $1 per foot), High tensile strength, inexpensive to maintain, can be used thousands of times without needing to be replaced, creates minimal mess, so lower clean up costs. Perfect tool for the job.

On a side note, I have the perfect compromise for those against capital punishment: They can voluntarily pay for all costs (Guards, clothing, food, water, electricity, maintenance fees, TV, etc.) of the lifer inmates upkeep out of their own pocket. That way, those for capital punishment aren't forced to pay for something that they don't believe in. (edited for clarity)


Ray

 

[cascadianliberty2012]

Soviet style, duh: "Your appeal has been denied" *Immediately shot in the head*

 

[The Nothing]

Swiftly!
In the case of my great-grandfather, he went from judge to gallows in less than 3 months.

 

[Cigarlvr313]

The expediency of the process can be lightening quick but You have to have a governor that will do the duties of their office according to the law (voted in by the people) first.

Kate was pretty quick to judge Lavoy Finicum...........?

 

[tac]

In Victorian England, justice was swift indeed. There was a maximum of thirty days between sentence and the drop. But then there were no lines of lawyers hanging around to 'take care' of the interests of the guilty party.

tac

 

[bbbass]

Take them out and shoot them at the next sunrise.

 

[Vorpalis]

I'd like to give aggrieved family members a shot at flipping the switch, yanking the platform, pulling the trigger, etc. (whatever applies).

That may be emotionally gratifying, but it crosses a very important line between justice and revenge.

Swift justice ... will not dissuade a "crime of passion". A planned crime may be reconsidered...

So we're all clear, "crime of passion" doesn't only mean romantic feelings, like a jealous lover, it also means all emotion-driven violence, like losing one's temper or taking revenge.

That capital punishment is not an effective deterrent in many circumstances, including crimes of passion, is one of the best arguments against it.

One of the best arguments for capital punishment is the role biology and childhood environment play in violent crime. Certain hereditary and congenital aberrations in the brain, as well as nurtural conditioning, can predispose someone to violence, to impulsivity, to lacking a fear of consequences, or to lacking empathy for others. We're still fairly early in learning about these, and we don't yet know how to fix them. Some, but not all people with these aberrations / conditioning may pose an on-going risk to other members of society. Capital punishment, as well as imprisonment in general, are in a sense stop-gap measures – the only measures we currently have – to protect everyone else from those people, until we learn how to "fix" them. This requires study, which brings us to...

The reason we keep these air wasters around is so they can be studied. Then, maybe the shrinks will be able to predict the next offender. They'll all knowingly nod their heads as to their findings and nothing will get done because it may violate some perps civil rights.

While there is truth in this, it's also a generalization – broad in scope, but shallow in depth. If we don't study it then we don't learn anything, including whether it's effective, why it is or isn't effective, and how to make it more effective. Whatever the aim, being effective is important, right?

 

[tac]

One certainty is that one firmly-applied execution prevents any kind of re-offending.

There have been many cases where applying the law with a firm hand in the first instance would have saved many lives.

tac

 

[Captain O]

One certainty is that one firmly-applied execution prevents any kind of re-offending.

There have been many cases where applying the law with a firm hand in the first instance would have saved many lives.

tac

You're referring to a "specific" deterrent as opposed to a "general" deterrent. The "object of the exercise" (e.g. the 'Inmate Subject to the Death Penalty') will not re-offend.

Those engaged in premeditated crimes may be deterred. The "cost vs. reward" aspect of the crime may give the offender pause to reconsider, while the true sociopath may not be deterred at all. In my humble opinion, these individuals could be removed from society without either impact or consequence. Aside from their immediate family, their loss wouldn't be felt, since they aren't making a positive contribution to society. (This is what has been commonly called the "good riddance" factor).

 

[2506]

I find it interesting that a great many of the members of this forum who constantly bemoan the total fallibility, incompetence, and fraud of the government have no problem with that same government killing people with little or no oversight and with the suggestion that it occur even faster. The mere fact that death-row inmates are exonerated every year should put a moratorium on state-sponsored death.

 

[Captain O]

I find it interesting that a great many of the members of this forum who constantly bemoan the total fallibility, incompetence, and fraud of the government have no problem with that same government killing people with little or no oversight and with the suggestion that it occur even faster. The mere fact that death-row inmates are exonerated every year should put a moratorium on state-sponsored death.

Generally speaking, most of the men/women that are sentenced to death have, for the most part, committed heinous felonies that went unpunished. These are "career criminals" that have no place in civil society. It may seem heartless, but for them, I have little sympathy.

Sorry.

 

[Slobray]

I find it interesting that a great many of the members of this forum who constantly bemoan the total fallibility, incompetence, and fraud of the government have no problem with that same government killing people with little or no oversight and with the suggestion that it occur even faster. The mere fact that death-row inmates are exonerated every year should put a moratorium on state-sponsored death.

Then again, you have to look at the opposite side of your statement: There are those like the Manson Family, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), Lee Boyd Malvo (gateway sniper), Gary Ridgway (Green River Killer), Faisal Shahzad (Times Square Bomber), Jerry Sandusky (child rapist/molester), Terry Nichols (OKC bomber), Dennis Rader (BTK killer) and numerous others, where there is no doubt of their guilt. We (as tax payers) waste millions upon millions of dollars keeping them alive, when that money could be spent elsewhere or better yet, kept in our pockets.

I believe most are talking about executing those that are in the same/similar situation as I pointed out above.


Ray

 

[Vorpalis]

...most of the men/women that are sentenced to death...

It's the rest that are concerning.

@2506 has a valid point: If we all have a right to self-defense, then we all have a right to continue living. If our government can't be trusted to respect and abide the right to self-defense, and to only forcibly violate that right when there is just cause, then can we trust it to do the same with a person's right to continue living?

I also have a question regarding @2506's point: to what extent is our justice system actually distinct from the more "governmental" legislative and executive branches?

 

[HuckleberryFun]

We are all under sentence of death, temporarily reprieved.
Huck is in morbidly philosophical frame of mind at the moment.

 

[Slobray]

It's the rest that are concerning.

@2506 has a valid point: If we all have a right to self-defense, then we all have a right to continue living.

Unless, without appropriate cause* (*appropriate cause meaning such situations as self defense or defense of family, etc), they take it upon themselves to violate someone else's right to continue living/not being raped, molested, maimed, etc.


Ray

 

[Vorpalis]

Unless, without appropriate cause*

Yeah, you'll note that several people have made that point already. Since then, the conversation has shifted to the more interesting issue of everyone else sentenced to death – those who don't deserve it. There's also the topic about why people who don't trust the government, nevertheless trust the government to justly make that decision.

 

[Slobray]

Yeah, you'll note that several people have made that point already. Since then, the conversation has shifted to the more interesting issue of everyone else sentenced to death – those who don't deserve it.

Sorry, I missed it where someone advocated the execution of "those who don't deserve it".

There's also the topic about why people who don't trust the government, nevertheless trust the government to justly make that decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the jury make that decision?

<broken link removed>

In federal death penalty cases, however, the jury does decide whether the defendant will receive a death sentence.

Ray

 

[Vorpalis]

Sorry, I missed it where someone advocated the execution of "those who don't deserve it".

I was asking you to contribute something substantial and, preferably, interesting to the conversation, rather than reiterating what's already been said. Your sarcasm betrays that I hurt your feelings, so I apologize for that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the jury make that decision?

Yes, the jury decides whether to impose it. However, the government decides whether the jury has that option at all, what legal and evidential criteria must be met for it to be an option in a given case, what appeal process is available to a convict, how the execution will be carried out, and the government is who actually carries it out.

The fact that even one innocent person has been wrongfully executed (and there's been a *lot* more than one) should outrage all of us, especially because the 2A and the right to continue living is the root of our presence on this forum. Do you see how those two relate?