Wanting Death Penalty

[Ridgerunner]

This assumes he ever killed anyone in the first place, which he may not have. Cast against the reality that we can’t know for certain if every single convict is actually guilty, I’ve been unable to find a single compelling argument for capital punishment.

Some crimes are known for certain.

I am not saying there have never been any miscarriages of justice with innocent persons convicted of capital crimes. Perhaps there have been. But we don’t know that. One should not be misled by persons released because of technical errors in their trials resulting in their release.

 

[Forkfoot]

Serial killers can be eclectic in their choice of victims. Personally, I am inclined to take Bundy’s word for it. He knew his proclivities better than you do, I’m sure.

People are killed in prison by psychopaths and others.

As I said above, we could write new laws allowing for the swift execution of people based on the likelihood that they’ll kill again (and it would have to be MUCH faster; otherwise they can kill again during the many years they’re on death row for the very reasons you’re citing). Or, since we’re re-writing the law anyway, we can opt to seclude them. I prefer the option we can retract if they prove innocent.

 

[Forkfoot]

Some crimes are known for certain.
.

Some. Most aren’t though, in this imperfect system of ours.

I am not saying there have never been any miscarriages of justice with innocent persons convicted of capital crimes. Perhaps there have been. But we don’t know that.

Yes, we do.

 

[Forkfoot]

Serial killers can be eclectic in their choice of victims. Personally, I am inclined to take Bundy’s word for it. He knew his proclivities better than you do, I’m sure.

People are killed in prison by psychopaths and others.

And how many people did Bundy kill during the many years he was imprisoned, anyway?

 

[april32010]

Yes, we do.

no, we don’t.

 

[april32010]

If we were to address this issue, we could really rule that such people be kept in total isolation without any outside contact.

torture them in other words

 

[Ridgerunner]

As I said above, we could write new laws allowing for the swift execution of people based on the likelihood that they’ll kill again (and it would have to be MUCH faster; otherwise they can kill again during the many years they’re on death row for the very reasons you’re citing). Or, since we’re re-writing the law anyway, we can opt to seclude them. I prefer the option we can retract if they prove innocent.

The laws are already written allowing for swift execution. They are not swift because of the rights declared by courts, which legislatures cannot change.

Death rows are far more secure than prisons generally, perhaps for the reasons you gave. There are few people in them, which makes security much easier for them than for prison populations generally.

The prisons in the U.S. are not presently such that dangerous prisoners can be well isolated. It would take a lot to redo them, and a lot more public investment in them and in the personnel to run them. Perhaps if one is diametrically opposed to the death penalty, one should lobby, etc, for greater public spending on prisons before calling for abolition of the death penalty; the latter of which is, in some instances, a death sentence for other prisoners or people outside prison.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And how many people did Bundy kill during the many years he was imprisoned, anyway?

I doubt he killed any because he was on death row, where security is tight. If the man said he would kill if he could, it really is silly to doubt his word about it. If he is to be credited, putting him in the general prison population would have been a death sentence for some other prisoner or prisoners. Why would you want that?

 

[Forkfoot]

no, we don’t.

Yes you do. Who do you think you’re kidding?

 

[Forkfoot]

I doubt he killed any because he was on death row, where security is tight. If the man said he would kill if he could, it really is silly to doubt his word about it. If he is to be credited, putting him in the general prison population would have been a death sentence for some other prisoner or prisoners. Why would you want that?

I wouldn’t. Keep death row-level security, only instead of holding them there for years and years until their execution, hold them there for years and years until they die of natural causes. Execution doesn’t reduce prison populations by that much. Ending the insane and unsuccessful “war on drugs” would, though.

I’ll let this stand as my response to Ridgerunner’s comment as well.

 

[Forkfoot]

torture them in other words

Oh, so mercy killing is okay now?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wouldn’t. Keep death row-level security, only instead of holding them there for years and years until their execution, hold them there for years and years until they die of natural causes. Execution doesn’t reduce prison populations by that much. Ending the insane and unsuccessful “war on drugs” would, though.

I’ll let this stand as my response to Ridgerunner’s comment as well.

Then lobby for greatly increased appropriations for prisons, so there can be a reasonable degree of security for those who work there or are imprisoned there.

 

[Forkfoot]

Then lobby for greatly increased appropriations for prisons, so there can be a reasonable degree of security for those who work there or are imprisoned there.

I would contend that we have far too many people in prison as it is, due to the aforementioned war on drugs. Get rid of that and our country’s for-profit prison industry will see its census plummet drastically and we can focus on containing real dangerous criminals. We have by far the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet, and we don’t need to. But perhaps we’re derailing this thread by getting into that.

 

[kozlosap]

I wouldn’t. Keep death row-level security, only instead of holding them there for years and years until their execution, hold them there for years and years until they die of natural causes. Execution doesn’t reduce prison populations by that much. Ending the insane and unsuccessful “war on drugs” would, though.

I’ll let this stand as my response to Ridgerunner’s comment as well.

If in doubt about miscarriages of justice concerning the Death Penalty, google the Innocence Project and you will be astounded. In California alone, if we were to execute a person each day of the year, it would take over 2 years to clear San Quentin’s death row - that is not swift justice by any definition.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would contend that we have far too many people in prison as it is, due to the aforementioned war on drugs. Get rid of that and our country’s for-profit prison industry will see its census plummet drastically and we can focus on containing real dangerous criminals. We have by far the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet, and we don’t need to. But perhaps we’re derailing this thread by getting into that.

All said without any evidence whatever.

One thing I don’t think you understand is that supermax prisons are BUILT differently from other prisons.

Which prisoners do you want to release to the public? If you had to guarantee that your choices would commit no crimes, would you? Which drug dealers would you release first?

And most of the prisons are public institutions.

 

[Forkfoot]

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners. Dumping more money into the prison system is not the answer. Social justice is. The system is broken. This is the system y’all have been defending here.

 

[Baelor]

No, I’m not denying the right of self defense. What I’m saying is that principle of double effect, which justifies the actions of individuals, would not justify an execution based on a governmental claim that it was acting in self defense.

The application of double-effect to government institutions is not relevant to this thread.

Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence. These are all valid but all but one are secondary. The primary objective and, absent mitigating circumstances, the one that must always be satisfied, is retribution.

Yet in the case of the death penalty protection is ultimately as necessary as retribution as a criterion for its application.

If 2267 is prudential then the argument is about what action is best in the context of modern societies but there are no moral arguments against its use.

The statements about modern society are obviously prudential.

If 2267 is doctrinal then it is a repudiation of 20 centuries of church teaching and we have to accept that the church was in serious error for two millennia and virtually all of the Doctors and Fathers of the church, along with over 260 popes, were wrong on this issue

2267 is clearly doctrinal. The restriction based on protection is obviously not prudential, as it is stated without a limit on place or time and is devoid of any prudential context.

The Church is allowed to evolve its understanding on moral issues; the death penalty is not forbidden, but its moral dimensions have been further explored over time.

Please remember that even saints differed on applications of the death penalty.

 

[Forkfoot]

All said without any evidence whatever.

The war on drugs is a failed experiment. Read a book.

One thing I don’t think you understand is that supermax prisons are BUILT differently from other prisons.

Think how many resources we’d have at our disposal to improve security if we ended the war on drugs.

Which prisoners do you want to release to the public? If you had to guarantee that your choices would commit no crimes, would you? Which drug dealers would you release first?
.

Every one. Every single nonviolent drug offender there is.

And most of the prisons are public institutions.

.
Maybe so for the time being, but take a minute to read this:
huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/04/11/cca-prison-industry_n_3061115.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Every one. Every single nonviolent drug offender there is.

.
Maybe so for the time being, but take a minute to read this:
huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/04/11/cca-prison-industry_n_3061115.html

You would release every “nonviolent” drug offender there is? That would include someone, perhaps, who sold your child meth, causing him/her to try to stop a car with his/her bare hands? Somehow, I have my doubts.

And which of the drug offenders who are dealers do you think have never committed an act of violence in their trade? It’s the nature of it.

The “war on drugs” has had limited success due to the failure of society to realize how serious a crime drug dealing really is. Most first dealing offenses never draw prison time. Most possession offenders receive little in the way of punishment, even after multiple offenses. It just isn’t treated with sufficient seriousness. In Singapore, they execute you for dealing. I’m not suggesting execution here, but the incidence of drug use there is very low because they’re serious about enforcement.

Ending the 'war on drugs" reminds me of how things were before there were drug laws in this country. Virtually every patent medicine and a lot of ordinary consumer products contained dangerous drugs. I particularly remember “Godfrey’s cordials”; candies any child could buy, that contained opium. Coca Cola once contained cocaine. It was, undoubtedly, “The Pause that Refreshes”.

Please pardon me for not reading the Huffington Post. It would probably tempt me to go try to find a competing “Blaze” article to post here, which you would respect every bit as much as I respect the Huffington Post.

 

[april32010]

Oh, so mercy killing is okay now?

but you are ok with torture ?