capital punishment, yay or nay?

[Inquartata]

Perhaps. But if there is a genetic component, letting those with a given trait pass it on will certainly produce a higher number of offspring carrying the trait than will stopping them from passing it on. Predictable or no, consistent or no, extinguishing the line means zero transmission.

[jeff]

As you say "if there is a genetic component" to the abstract concept of "criminality" - which has not been established.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Predictable or no, consistent or no, extinguishing the line means zero transmission.

Killing the criminal to clean up the gene pool only works if they haven't already spawned prior to being killed, of course. If that's an argument, then better track down all their offspring and snuff them out, too? And then there are the siblings with the same genes who don't act criminally, so have to kill them and their kids, too, just to make certain?

I think that is possibly the weakest argument I've heard in favor of capital punishment. Why weaken the good arguments by including the lame ones?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Killing the criminal to clean up the gene pool only works if they haven't already spawned prior to being killed, of course. If that's an argument, then better track down all their offspring and snuff them out, too? And then there are the siblings with the same genes who don't act criminally, so have to kill them and their kids, too, just to make certain?

I think that is possibly the weakest argument I've heard in favor of capital punishment. Why weaken the good arguments by including the lame ones?

I agree. The eugenics argument is so absurd as to be irrelevent. You not only have to kill down the line, but up the line and across the line too. After all, Paps and Ma spawned the killer so have to wipe out their genes too. And then Grandpaps spawned the killer's Pa so gotta wipe him and Gramma out too, plus any cousins and any illegitimate kids. "Root and branch" as they say.

Capital punishment is about revenge, pure and simple. It is about exacting an equal toll on the murderer as was inflicted on the victim. The social benefits around capital punishment are those around satisfying that need for vengenance versus letting it fester.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

As you say "if there is a genetic component" to the abstract concept of "criminality" - which has not been established.

That's what makes it a theory.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Killing the criminal to clean up the gene pool only works if they haven't already spawned prior to being killed, of course. If that's an argument, then better track down all their offspring and snuff them out, too?

Any reduction in the number of bacteria is beneficial.

Why weaken the good arguments by including the lame ones?

How exactly does it do that?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That's what makes it a theory.

You mean it's more than idle speculation?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Any reduction in the number of bacteria is beneficial.

Kill all the bacteria in your GI tract, and you'll have an uncomfortable day or so...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

How exactly does it do that?

It raises the ohms on the lame material, and you get a yellow card for faulty equipment at the strip

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

No, no and thrice no. It's barbaric. Shouldn't people have a chance to be sorry and mend their ways? It's not about punishment, it's about revenge for the family of the dead person, and since when did revenge ever solve anything? (snip)

In a less nebulous vein (apologies for the mixed metaphor), it's not an effective deterrent -are there fewer murders in the US? No.
And for those who say "why should we pay our taxes to support them in jail for years?" - it's actually more expensive to execute, due to all the appeals (court costs) and the costliness of death row.

Frankly I think states that have the death penalty are dangerously backward; a lot of them defend it with some twist of Christianity, conveniently forgetting about the principles of forgiveness and repentance (hard to repent if they've already fried your brain) - has anyone read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood? It's the thin end of the fundamentalist wedge.

First, let's discuss the Why of the death penalty. Then let's discuss whether it serves the stated purpose or not.

The death penalty is neither about revenge nor punishment nor retribution. Those arguments merely muddy the water. The death penalty is about protecting society at large by permanently separating us (you and me) from the convicted murderer.

We're not about rehabilitating or punishing or balancing the scales, we're about protecting ourselves from those who have demonstrated that they possess both the capacity and the will to do murder.

In the days when the death sentence was de rigeur, it was the only way to permanently ensure that murderers didn't murder again--and that was its primary goal. During the 17th and 18th Century deportation was an acceptable alternative (the settlement of the Americas and Australia), as was simple isolation without hope of escape (Devil's Island). Nobody at home really cared if the deportees murdered each other, so long as they weren't able to murder us.

Prison terms as a form of judicial punishment weren't introduced until the early 19th century, initially under the auspices of the Society of Friends in Pennsylvania; they were the first to introduce the concept of "rehabilitating" criminals.

Since the introduction of maximum security prisons, it is possible to isolate the murderer without actually killing him/her. Therefore, the death penalty is no longer needed for its original purpose; the debate has become mixed up with interjected principles of "mercy", "repentence", "rehabilitation", and "retribution", none of which were part of the original rationale.

If life imprisonment sentences are uniformly without chance of parole, then I vote for imprisonment. If there's a chance the murder will get out again, however, I say fry him/her.

[Larrison]

>>If life imprisonment sentences are uniformly without chance of parole, then I vote for imprisonment. If there's a chance the murder will get out again, however, I say fry him/her.<<

lochinvar and I disagree on somethings, but I have to say I agree on this. In the US, the typical death sentence process is a full dual set of trials -- first, to see if they are guilty, followed by appropriate appeals and challenges; and then secondly to see if the crime and evidence justifies the death penalty, followed by appropriate appeals and challenges. So once someone has gone through a full dual set of trials and judgements and appeals, and given an appropriate period of time for the court cases to work through the system -- then I'd say without an iron clad, non-repealable, assurance they will never leave the prison system, then a death penalty seems reasonable.

I will add, that if you could find a way to "exile" these folks to somewhere they could not ever get back to the rest of the society, then I would prefer that. Something like exile on the moon or something. But given that no prison is escapeproof, and that in most states a "life sentence" can be defined as short as 10 years (with option of parole after that)....

http://www.answers.com/topic/life-imprisonment-2

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Since the introduction of maximum security prisons, it is possible to isolate the murderer without actually killing him/her.

I must reiterate: this is not so. I refer you again to Robert "Bonzai" Vickers. There is no way to withhold all human contact from an inmate; even the worst are entitled to medical care, for instance---which cannot be administered by robots. Yet, anyway. Where there is opportunity and motive, there is still danger.

[lochinvar]

Right. So just fry 'em.

[Soldier]

Nah, then you run up an electric bill. The guillotine was ever so efficient, and just as quick (and humane, even).

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Nah, then you run up an electric bill. The guillotine was ever so efficient, and just as quick (and humane, even).

Umm.. and I know I'm going to lose rep points for this. But considering some of the crimes and the people involved... quick and humane might not be a major consideration for me...

*sigh* I know, I know.. No cruel or unusual punishments, and while they may be *evil* in some cases, there is no reason to torture them, like they did their vicitims.. And vengence and justice should never be confused... but....

[Soldier]

Good thing there's no more negative rep points, huh?

I know what you mean...sure is tempting, even though I also don't believe in vengeance.

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Umm.. and I know I'm going to lose rep points for this. But considering some of the crimes and the people involved... quick and humane might not be a major consideration for me...

*sigh* I know, I know.. No cruel or unusual punishments, and while they may be *evil* in some cases, there is no reason to torture them, like they did their vicitims.. And vengence and justice should never be confused... but....

Last time I checked the majority (by a mini amount) voted against, I doubt that you'll be bad rep'd.

P.S - DP suxxors!

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I must reiterate: this is not so. I refer you again to Robert "Bonzai" Vickers. There is no way to withhold all human contact from an inmate; even the worst are entitled to medical care, for instance---which cannot be administered by robots. Yet, anyway. Where there is opportunity and motive, there is still danger.

1) Yay, taking a limited case and using it to generalize an argument

2) If you start executing people because keeping them in jail for life would likely result in harm to others, you are punishing people for crimes they have not yet committed. This goes against every legal practice we currently hold. The punishment of a criminal cannot depend on what he might do, but rather on what he has done. If we went by future possibilities, I may then be arrested because I might just murder all of my classmates who don't know who Orwell is/was Try again?

[scrapinpeg]

except that anticipated future conduct IS a consideration of many sentences. protective custody. isolation. enhancement of sentence based on historical proclivity to commit violence. assignment to harsher facilities based on proclivity. etc. etc.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

except that anticipated future conduct IS a consideration of many sentences. protective custody. isolation. enhancement of sentence based on historical proclivity to commit violence. assignment to harsher facilities based on proclivity. etc. etc.

Protective custody is not a punishment. Isolation is a response to previous actions. Procivity is past trends rather then anticipated future ones. Try again?