Say a police officer was walking down the street and saw a gangster shoot down an innocent victim. The police officer yells, stop and drop your weapon. The gangster shoots at the police officer and misses. The officer shoots back and kills the gangster. That is also an example of the death penalty.

The main difference between the death penalty you speak of and the one I speak of is the time element. The more time that goes by, the more time lawyers can reinforce a fake news narrative until the atrocity is confused and the rights of the victim is diminished in favor of the criminal. People, except the family of the victim, will wan to forget making them vulnerable to long term utopian deception.

The main reason the death penalty is not a deterrent is there is a sub culture who favors criminals over their victims. Death row inmates have a cult following. The criminals know that lawyers and criminal groupies will cover for them, until the time based confusion renders the penalty mute as a deterrent.

The faster between the time of the crime and the execution, the less noise has an impact. In my example above, only a few criminal groupies will complain of the shoot, unless they are those who use the minority card, before the facts. They always prejudge in advance.

I like the idea of using various truth serums, instead of long winded trials that create jobs for lawyers. During a drugged interrogation, a defense attorney can be present, along with the judge and prosecution. They can both cross exam the drugged person. An innocent man will not condemn himself by speaking the truth in front of a judge. The entire process can be done in a matter of days, so the time illusion factor is minimized. If the person is innocent he gets compensated for the blunder of the prosecution.

We should not be spending more on the criminals than on the victim. In a capitalist society where value is equal to the amount of money spend, spending more on the criminal, means he/she has more value. This helps to induce the criminal groupie affect.

Say a police officer was walking down the street and saw a gangster shoot down an innocent victim. The police officer yells, stop and drop your weapon. The gangster shoots at the police officer and misses. The officer shoots back and kills the gangster. That is also an example of the death penalty. — wellwisher

No it's not. You might be using this legal term metaphorically, but that's not the same thing. For the same reason, abortion and collateral damage are not murder, and "misgendering" is not rape or sexual abuse, legal custody is not kidnapping, and so on and so forth. That just muddies the water.

What Sapientia said!

The main reason the death penalty is so barbaric, and so dehumanising of the society that conducts it, is that it is done in cold blood, against a helpless, powerless individual. How anybody could think that killing somebody in those circumstance is comparable to what happens in self-defence, or even in any situation where the victim is armed and dangerous, is beyond me.

I don't think life imprisonment is necessarily more humane.

Develloped societies now typically see life as the highest value, and obviously there are good arguments for that, because when life ends nothing else matters anymore... But, I think there is an argument to be made that quality of life is even more important.

For instance, it seems pretty reasonable to me that torturing someone and then killing them, is worse then just killing them straight away, eventhough he does get to life longer in the first case.

If life in prison would be seen as negative quality of life, then the death sentence would be the more humane sentence.

The question, it seems to me, is whether the state may kill. That is, if it is wrong for people to kill, can it ever be right for the state to kill, perhaps employing some people as its agents. Is collective good, good for all? Is it a moral good?

Can anyone ague that the state must never kill?

Much as I don't like it, I suspect that the state must have the right to kill under certain conditions and with suitable constraints and restrictions - establishing the latter perhaps being an unsolvable problem.

For example, it is conceivable that Donald Trump is a traitor, engaged in acts of treason. If convicted of same, should he be hanged? I argue yes, as a duty of the state.

The American punishment system composed of long prison terms, capital punishment, grotesque prison conditions, et al are largely for the benefit and satisfaction of everyone except the convicted who, because they have been convicted, no longer matter in the eyes of the public.

It's a system that often de-humanizes, alienates, and degrades the criminal.

Whether justice is miscarried or not, a conviction and even a short term in prison is often an enduring punishment, because having been convicting and having served time is frequently an effective barrier against employment.

Can anyone ague that the state must never kill? — tim wood

No, sometimes it - "we" (the people) - simply must.

it is conceivable that Donald Trump is a traitor, engaged in acts of treason. If convicted of same, should he be hanged? — tim wood

I would say no, because we don't actually need to. We can incarcerate him physically and financially, and that ought to be sufficient. Do we really need a lethal deterrent against elected officials turning traitor? (Who the hell have we been electing!?)



Regarding the broad question of capital punishment of criminals, I think that A, since it would be cheaper to incarcerate for life, and B we can afford to do so, even the worst criminals need not be put to death.

There is however a problem with the punitive system in general: it's inefficient, over-populated, inhumane, and utterly fails to rehabilitate. Perhaps a knee jerk reaction is to think that putting more inmates to death could solve the problem, but they're not stopping to consider how unethical that would be or why it wouldn't actually save money or make a positive difference of any kind.

Instead of deterrence through suffering as a general M.O, we really ought to just invest in full blown rehabilitation so that recidivism rates are actually reduced and we will save money in the long run. Somehow America has the largest prison population (both in total, and per capita) of any nation on the planet (22 percent of the world's prisoners are in America), so whatever it is America is doing, it's not working...

As an argument against capital punishment in this day and age, consider the following: If creating a deterrent is the main purpose of punitive justice, then why not have a daily prisoner lottery of all 2 million plus American prisoners and put 100 or so winners to death on live television each day? People in jail for crimes of any magnitude would be utterly terrified that they're going to be chosen for execution, and civilians on the outside would be utterly terrified of breaking the law for fear of being put into the death-lottery in prison.

If deterrence is an adequate justification, then why not?

Death penalty is idiotic.

The death penalty being unpopular or popular hasn't changed that much in the last decade. The only recent delay has been the inability to order the medication necessary to meet the standard of a 'humane' execution, which is absurd in it's wording but I support the Pharm industry not wanting to produce an "execution" drug.

The death penalty needs to be measured against it's alternative, life imprisonment. It's hypocritical moralism to evaluate the death penalty negatively in the abstract, as if putting people away for life is a moral neutral act. They have no prospects for a life worth living either way.

I agree that punsihment just for the sake of vengeance is backward, and if rehabilitation is possible that would be preferable. But some people are beyond rehabilitation and need to be permanently removed from society to prevent further harm.

The question is what to do with those. And I think there is something to be said for getting it over with... for all parties involved.

The question is what to do with those. And I think there is something to be said for getting it over with... for all parties involved. — ChatteringMonkey

There might be something to be said for an expensive, failed deterrent which has killed innocent people, and will likely continue to do so for as long as it remains in place? Whatever it is that might be said in its favour, it must be weighed against these sizeable faults.

The death penalty being unpopular or popular hasn't changed that much in the last decade. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Two points here. 1, you mean, in the United States. It's something Americans on the forum are often careless about and means something: about whether the rest of the world counts.

2. Evidentially, the last evidence I saw was that USA support for the death penalty was in quite steep historical decline: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/national-polls-and-studies But maybe in the last year it has changed.

Deterrence and costs don't seem like really substantial arguments for or against the death penalty, in comparison to life imprisonment.

The possibility of convicting someone who is innocent is obviously a relevant argument, but only insofar that person would otherwise be acquitted during his life-time in prison. I have no idea what the chances are of that...

Anyway, my point was more against an a priori dogmatic rejection of the death penalty as barbaric or some such. If there are good reasons for rejecting it, like the possibility of innocence, i'm on board with that.

I'm sorry...

Aaahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Im not saying the USA should do this... But what if there were shootings of criminals? What if the punishment for a heinous crime like murdering a child, raping someone, brutally killing another, armed robbery, etc was always worse than the crime? That would successfully deter a lot of people say, "Well, if I kill this person and am found guilty, I am going to get my head blown off in public and my body burned to ashes and disposed of, or get hanged in public and then cut into pieces and thrown into a landfill" or, "If I rape someone and get caught, they are going to cut off my penis."

I might actually support this...

It seems unethical... But seriously? Imagine how the victims feel and the families? The only unethical thing was what the criminal did...
I say screw the child murderer or repeat child rapist... They should get what they bargained for... MORE THAN THEY BARGAINED FOR.

I wonder how many people would commit crimes if there was a system like this for serious criminal offenses.
@ChatteringMonkey@mcdoodle@Sapientia@ArguingWAristotleTiff@Maw@VagabondSpectre@Bitter Crank@tim wood@wellwisher@andrewk

The main reason the death penalty is so barbaric, and so dehumanising of the society that conducts it, is that it is done in cold blood, against a helpless, powerless individual. — andrewk

However, there are some individuals I would make an exception for, such as serial killers. I don't care if they are helpless and powerless before the state given their crimes and general lack of remorse or possibility for reform.

But that's already been tried, in most of the world, through most of history.

There is scant evidence to suggest that the death penalty as a deterrent works.

The obvious retort is that it deters those who are put to death. But it's not about deterrent. It's whether some crimes are so heinous and some individuals so far beyond reform that they deserve to be put to death.

Since the death penalty returned to America in 1976, 162 death sentences have been reversed and 1,480 people have been executed, so roughly one in ten was found innocent.

This is the strong argument against the death penalty. I think only those with overwhelming evidence that will never be overturned should be eligible. Jeffrey Dahmer would never have been found innocent, for example. So the question is whether it's better to put such individuals to death.

A decent argument against that would be that it benefits society more to study and understand them. Fair enough, but then that's what they should be used for if they're not put to death.

okay, well what if someone raped a child and then murdered them? What if someone murdered another brutally in cold blood?
They should still be treated with dignity?

I think that is unethical in itself. It is a complete mutation of ethics.

A child rapist should have his penis cut off with a dull knife, waterboarded, then thrown into a dark cage for weeks eating nothing but hard raman noodles and drinking dirty water.
Bet you they wouldn't do that ever again!
Bet you after hearing this nobody would dare rape a child.

The man who murdered my partner's aunt, who got away with it, and left her body rotting for weeks deserved to be tortured.

Fear is the only real deterrant.

Maybe they deserve cruel and unusual punishment, for the criminal took away the rights of an individual by murdering them.

Fear is the only real deterrant. — Blue Lux

Some people aren't deterred by fear. There was one rapist who couldn't understand why rape was wrong because the idea of being raped didn't bother him at all. Also, some people like taking dangerous risks. It makes them feel alive.

Maybe they deserve cruel and unusual punishment, for the criminal took away the rights of an individual by murdering them. — Blue Lux

I draw the line at torture. Putting them to death would be like putting a dog with rabies down. Torturing for revenge degrades us, although I understand the sentiment in the case of certain crimes.

Whether justice is miscarried or not, a conviction and even a short term in prison is often an enduring punishment, because having been convicting and having served time is frequently an effective barrier against employment. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, but if you're on death row, it's usually for a crime that you're not getting out of jail to go have a job anyway. These are the kind of crimes where you don't want to see those people back in society, unless they're innocent, of course, which unfortunately happens too often.

or the same reason, abortion and collateral damage are not murder, — Sapientia

LOL! Only because the nations who commit collateral damage control the international courts. Which goes to the point that the legal definition of murder is whatever society decides it is.

key word 'some' aren't deterred by fear. And in this case you are talking about psychopathic individuals. In this case, a mental asylum for the criminally insane is sufficient. Perhaps... Lobotomy!

So in some cases a person is not responsible for the brutal murder of someone?!

Lol! Right...

I think death row should be reserved for the worst of the worst where the evidence is overwhelming and they're not criminally insane, which means they know what they did was wrong but don't care. Richard Ramirez and Dennis Rader being too prime examples of that.

So in some cases a person is not responsible for the brutal murder of someone?! — Blue Lux

In some cases the Justice System screws up and convicts the wrong person.

There was a Columbian serial killer who after being released from a psychiatric hospital disappeared and his whereabouts remain unknown. He was convicted for killing over 100 girls (ages 9 to 11) in South America (having led police to 53 graves).

Maybe he stopped. Maybe not.