The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[FBM]

I'm not very keen on the death penalty, but I think there should be an opening in the law to remove the hands and genitals of pedos and mass murderers

Works for me, except that they'd then be entitled to public (tax-paid) support for the rest of their lives. But chemical castration is cathing on here in Korea. Maybe it will spread.

[Jason]

Children cannot give legal consent; that alone renders all sexual intercourse with a child rape legally speaking, it seems to me. And given the particularly vulnerable and fragile mental state of children, who are after all in the process of forming their own personality, I don't have an issue with killing someone evil enough to emotionally brand someone for life.

I know my opinion isn't going to be shared by many people, and that's cool. It's just my opinion: molesters are trash, and like all trash, they should be disposed of.

Indeed, however, molestation does not necessarily translate to sexual intercourse which refers strictly to penetrative acts of a sexual nature. I realize it is and has been in vogue to express one's absolute disgust at pedophilia, but I don't think anything is served by casting rational thought into the virulent sea of emotive opinion.

The question of the validity of retributive justice is more obscure. What purpose does it serve? Is it an effective deterrent? To the first question I must answer that it serves to, superficially, ease the outrage and anger of the victim and those affected by it. It is a savage and primitive salve which soon loses its efficacy. My response to the second question follows from the first and it is simply no. Multiple studies have shown that in states with the death penalty crime rates for those crimes for which the death penalty is administered are not reduced. So what do you expect to achieve by introducing a death penalty and/or mutilation penalty?

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Children cannot give legal consent; that alone renders all sexual intercourse with a child rape legally speaking, it seems to me. And given the particularly vulnerable and fragile mental state of children, who are after all in the process of forming their own personality, I don't have an issue with killing someone evil enough to emotionally brand someone for life.

I know my opinion isn't going to be shared by many people, and that's cool. It's just my opinion: molesters are trash, and like all trash, they should be disposed of.

Indeed, however, molestation does not necessarily translate to sexual intercourse which refers strictly to penetrative acts of a sexual nature. I realize it is and has been in vogue to express one's absolute disgust at pedophilia, but I don't think anything is served by casting rational thought into the virulent sea of emotive opinion.

I think molesters rape the psyches of their young victims. They inflict scars which are lifelong and extremely damaging psychologically. I think if your moral compass is so askew that you regard kidfiddling as appropriate, you surrender the right to live in our society.

Right now, the only way that permanent divorce can be assured is through killing the violator.

Now, if we, say, set aside one of the Aleutians for an escape-proof prisoner's colony, I'd reconsider this view. But until then, society's right to be free of assholes who prey upon its most vulnerable members trumps the right of said assholes to live in that society, in my view.

The question of the validity of retributive justice is more obscure. What purpose does it serve? Is it an effective deterrent? To the first question I must answer that it serves to, superficially, ease the outrage and anger of the victim and those affected by it. It is a savage and primitive salve which soon loses its efficacy. My response to the second question follows from the first and it is simply no. Multiple studies have shown that in states with the death penalty crime rates for those crimes for which the death penalty is administered are not reduced. So what do you expect to achieve by introducing a death penalty and/or mutilation penalty?

You're assuming that my desire is for retribution. It isn't. If my stand were based on the idea of retribution, I wouldn't oppose the death penalty in so many other instances where it is already acceptable here in America. As I noted in my original post, I only consider it appropriate for two crimes. (The other crime, by the way, is murder for hire).

My desire is to insure that the violator doesn't reoffend. As noted above, if we can be assured that the pedophile will remain separate from society without killing them, I'm fine with it. But we cannot. Prison budgets are subject to the vicissitudes of economic health, and the prisons themselves are subject to oversight from courts which have been known to order the release of violent offenders on grounds unrelated to the reform of the criminal. Both those are avenues whereby the molester might get out, and commit more molestations.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Yes, Nietzsche. You might have a point if I were advocating for the execution of innocents. I don't think advocating for killing convicted molesters makes anyone a monster. I'm a tolerant man, but people who prey upon the naive and the innocent surrender the right to have any role in society. They should be removed from society forever, so as to ensure that society suffers no more from their depredations. Absent penal colonies rendered escape-proof by dint of geography, executing them seems to be the only means of assuring that removal.

Dead men don't recidivate.

[Pappa]

I'm against the death penalty for this reason: http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Br ... ofiles.php

All those people were released from prison after DNA evidence proved their innocence, all of them could otherwise have been executed by the state. The success of the Innocence Project highlights quite starkly that innocent people are convicted of terrible crimes far too often.

[maiforpeace]

I'm against the death penalty for this reason: http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Br ... ofiles.php

All those people were released from prison after DNA evidence proved their innocence, all of them could otherwise have been executed by the state. The success of the Innocence Project highlights quite starkly that innocent people are convicted of terrible crimes far too often.

For the crime of pedophilia -I advocate life sentences without parole at this point in time. The US justice system spends way more time, dollars and emotional pain toward the death penalty and the endless appeals attached to the death penalty anyway. And, If you advocate the punitive measures, at least in my opinion, life without parole seems far more punishing than just being put out of your misery.

As for the type of justice - I agree with Thump, there is no real way to have restorative justice in this particular instance, so the best thing to do is just imprison them away from children forever AND not risk putting an innocent person to death.

[Blind groper]

An article I read a few years back did an economic analysis on executions. Assuming it costs $ 100,000 per year to keep someone in prison, it costs two and a half times the lifetime cost, on average, of such incarceration, to execute them. That is mainly due to the repeated appeals and court action of a desperate person trying to stay alive.

So why not simply lock 'em up for a lifetime?

[Svartalf]

Why not reduce cheapen the appeals process, if only by making sure that the preliminary investigations are conducted properly and prosecutors have a stake in seeing justice done rather than just getting a conviction, so as to ensure no innocents get sentenced to start with?

[Clinton Huxley]

A foolproof legal system? On what planet?

[Blind groper]

Why not reduce cheapen the appeals process, if only by making sure that the preliminary investigations are conducted properly and prosecutors have a stake in seeing justice done rather than just getting a conviction, so as to ensure no innocents get sentenced to start with?

That is what they do in China.

A brief court process. A short time in prison. Then a bullet in the back of the head.

We will never know how many innocent people get executed that way.

[Hermit]

Why not reduce cheapen the appeals process, if only by making sure that the preliminary investigations are conducted properly and prosecutors have a stake in seeing justice done rather than just getting a conviction, so as to ensure no innocents get sentenced to start with?

The judicial system is attempting that as we speak. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the quality of the "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" verdict?

Besides that, I just don't like the idea of government-sanctioned murder.

[Svartalf]

Why not reduce cheapen the appeals process, if only by making sure that the preliminary investigations are conducted properly and prosecutors have a stake in seeing justice done rather than just getting a conviction, so as to ensure no innocents get sentenced to start with?

That is what they do in China.

A brief court process. A short time in prison. Then a bullet in the back of the head.

We will never know how many innocent people get executed that way.

I said "reduce and cheapen, like by ensuring that no wrong convictions are issued in the first place", not, "reduce to pro forma proceedings before reducing an already overabundant population by one unit"

[Svartalf]

Why not reduce cheapen the appeals process, if only by making sure that the preliminary investigations are conducted properly and prosecutors have a stake in seeing justice done rather than just getting a conviction, so as to ensure no innocents get sentenced to start with?

The judicial system is attempting that as we speak. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the quality of the "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" verdict?

Besides that, I just don't like the idea of government-sanctioned murder.

No it's not. At least not in the US where
a) the burden of disproving dodgy prosecution evidence lies on the accused, and his pocketbook. (it's notorious that most wrongful convictions happen due to the accused being too poor to afford a competent lawyer and decent investigative staff to show how the prosecution is using sham or circumstantial data to make a case)

b) the prosecution has to get lots of convictions and "be tough on crime" if they want reelection or promotion, meaning they have incentive to favor a likely looking case and an easy conviction over really looking for the guilty party and seeing justice done. If they got somebody who could have done it, and they can convince the jury to make it stick, they'll do it, even if it's the wrong guy... even if a wrongful conviction comes to surface, by the time it does, the prosecutor will have jumped a few electoral hurdles and/or gotten promotion, and seeing one of his cases reversed won't matter anymore.

The "reasonable doubt" doctrine would be fine if prosecution did not work to dispel such where it should be, and if so many accuseds did not have to rely on ill paid and often incompetent defence lawyers who can't establish it, even when warranted.

[Mallardz]

Battle Royale!!!!!
That'll keep things in line. It's essentially a death penalty but more interesting.
I think again you have problem with misconviction.
I don't support the death penalty if we can't have euthanasia for the terminally ill, severely disabled and what not if it's what they want.

[Hermit]

Why not reduce cheapen the appeals process, if only by making sure that the preliminary investigations are conducted properly and prosecutors have a stake in seeing justice done rather than just getting a conviction, so as to ensure no innocents get sentenced to start with?

The judicial system is attempting that as we speak. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the quality of the "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" verdict?

Besides that, I just don't like the idea of government-sanctioned murder.

No it's not. At least not in the US where
a) the burden of disproving dodgy prosecution evidence lies on the accused, and his pocketbook. (it's notorious that most wrongful convictions happen due to the accused being too poor to afford a competent lawyer and decent investigative staff to show how the prosecution is using sham or circumstantial data to make a case)

b) the prosecution has to get lots of convictions and "be tough on crime" if they want reelection or promotion, meaning they have incentive to favor a likely looking case and an easy conviction over really looking for the guilty party and seeing justice done. If they got somebody who could have done it, and they can convince the jury to make it stick, they'll do it, even if it's the wrong guy... even if a wrongful conviction comes to surface, by the time it does, the prosecutor will have jumped a few electoral hurdles and/or gotten promotion, and seeing one of his cases reversed won't matter anymore.

The "reasonable doubt" doctrine would be fine if prosecution did not work to dispel such where it should be, and if so many accuseds did not have to rely on ill paid and often incompetent defence lawyers who can't establish it, even when warranted.

In other words, you agree that the current methods of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" does not prevent innocents to be killed by the law. Your implied suggestions for solving that problem remind me of this:

Q: How do we eliminate the common cold?
A: We find a cure for it.

My second objection still stands as well: Capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder.

[Svartalf]

I maintain that said "method" might be fine if it were actually practiced.

and I fear we are at an irreductible disagreement on the other point, since I have little in the way of qualms against ridding society of individuals too dangerous and harmful to ever be allowed in it, and that cannot be reformed in prison. This means I agree to the death penalty, sanctioned by the state and either executed by it or by voluntary private citizens once the subject's life has been declared forfeit. A lesser way might be banishment, but that is no longer as practicable as it used to be, and still needs the 'on pain of death' threat to prevent undesirables from coming back.