Allowing the serious offenders to live.

[BSM1]

That is an entirely separate discussion.

I agree, but aren't we talking about the same results?

 

[Alceste]

Right, but what makes other vindictive punishments (meaning: no demonstrable social benefit) acceptable?
Most places have such a high ratio of extreme vindictive punishments to judicial murder, I don't understand why executions seem to be such a concern...
OK, that was a lie: I'm pretty sure it's because of that river in Egypt (as usual).

I don't believe punishment is ethical or effective, full stop. I take a completely pragmatic approach to public safety. If punishment doesn't reduce crime over all, there's no point to it.

I live in a society where people kvetch and moan if a prisoner gets a steak or access to a television, though, so we have a schizophrenic justice system which is half punishing / half reforming. IMO, loss of liberty / family / home / job etc. is enough of an inconvenience for anyone to contemplate the wisdom of their choices and maybe reach some new conclusions. Adding petty things like crappy food, hard labour and intolerable living conditions to the mix is just vindictive.

 

[Alceste]

I agree, but aren't we talking about the same results?

The result is not the point. We will all die in the end. Does it matter whether we are murdered or die peacefully in our sleep?

When you harm or kill someone in self defense or defense of another, you are taking a pragmatic and responsible action that will prevent a crime from being committed. Once the crime has already been committed, what is to be gained by hurting or killing the offender, except satisfaction or our own most sinister inclinations? The danger is over, the criminal is in custody and can not hurt anyone.

 

[TheKnight]

The result is not the point. We will all die in the end. Does it matter whether we are murdered or die peacefully in our sleep?

When you harm or kill someone in self defense or defense of another, you are taking a pragmatic and responsible action that will prevent a crime from being committed. Once the crime has already been committed, what is to be gained by hurting or killing the offender, except satisfaction or our own most sinister inclinations? The danger is over, the criminal is in custody and can not hurt anyone.

What she said.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Exile serious criminals to a remote location. Like an island far out at sea in international waters. Let nature decide.

Pretty sure that's how Australia started anyway.

 

[BSM1]

The result is not the point. We will all die in the end. Does it matter whether we are murdered or die peacefully in our sleep?

When you harm or kill someone in self defense or defense of another, you are taking a pragmatic and responsible action that will prevent a crime from being committed. Once the crime has already been committed, what is to be gained by hurting or killing the offender, except satisfaction or our own most sinister inclinations? The danger is over, the criminal is in custody and can not hurt anyone.

Suppose this felon is somehow released or escapes from prison, is their life more important than perhaps another innocent victim? If the state has a legal right to make sure that this person never hurts another citizen doesn't the state also have the moral obligation to do so?

 

[Alceste]

Suppose this felon is somehow released or escapes from prison, is their life more important than perhaps another innocent victim? If the state has a legal right to make sure that this person never hurts another citizen doesn't the state also have the moral obligation to do so?

I don't know about "moral obligation" but a reasonable society will take steps to ensure the possibility of another crime being committed is limited to the lowest possible risk. If that requires euthanizing the offender, then so be it. I have no problem with that.

I only have a problem with killing for revenge, or to appease the tumultuous, angry emotions of the victim/s, or because we think it will dissuade criminals from committing crimes, or to cause pain, suffering and anguish to the offender. Since those basically sum up the top reasons people support the death penalty, I cannot support it myself.

 

[Father Heathen]

Anyone who has denied/violated another person's right should not have that same right afforded to themselves.

 

[Alceste]

Anyone who has denied/violated another person's right should have that same right forfeited for themselves.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

 

[Father Heathen]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

So when you work, you don't expect a paycheck; i.e. a reward proportional to your actions?

 

[apophenia]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man
Exile serious criminals to a remote location. Like an island far out at sea in international waters. Let nature decide.

Pretty sure that's how Australia started anyway.

Common misconception.

England needed people on the ground to establish a colony. There was zero existing infrastructure. Since the conditions were so harsh, they weren't likely to get many volunteers until some infrastructure was established and the 'local savages' controlled. Examples of the 'criminals' they sent to Australia include an ancestor of mine, a single mother in poverty who was convicted of stealing a small quantity of beans to feed her children.

Serious criminal ?

As in America, the serious criminals were the ones who organised and carried out the violent subjugation of the indigenous population. Other appropriate language - ethnic cleansing, genocide.Compared to them, petty thieves are saints.

 

[Leftimies]

Now now you people, don't be so harsh. Life sentence in Finland is a continious stay in a three-star hotel! Where you can study and attain degrees in a whole variety of studies! Gee, I think I will have to apply for Prison soon, I hear the teachers there are top-notch. Funniest of all, state spends more on their food than on the food of high-schoolers...

Somebody just shoot me. I can't bear with this embarrasment that is supposedly the most hardcore punishment that Finnish state can bestow upon a monsterous criminal.

Back on topic...I dont understand life imprisonment. So you are gonna put a person to a cell for the remainder of his/hers life...why? What is the point, to society, family, friends, etc he/she will be effectively as good as dead. Only thing that separates life imprisonment from death sentence is that you will have to keep the serial killer alive, and, in Finland's case, provide him with social services. Damnit! =_= I see the logic in death sentence, and, most importantly that it discourages the crime in the first place. When you get a rid of the crime with the death sentence deterrent, you no longer to have to execute serious law offenders anymore either.

 

[Alceste]

So when you work, you don't expect a paycheck; i.e. a reward proportional to your actions?

To be honest, one consequence of doing what I love for a living is that I often don't get paid at all. I don't usually agree to do things for money that I wouldn't do for fun.

I don't think this is relevant though. I make contract arrangements in writing in advance, so I know exactly what I will be paid and the client knows what they will get in exchange. No criminal makes a contract to be euthanized in exchange for committing a crime (although I support euthanizing pretty much anyone at their request if they have a good enough reason).

 

[Father Heathen]

To be honest, one consequence of doing what I love for a living is that I often don't get paid at all. I don't usually agree to do things for money that I wouldn't do for fun.

I don't think this is relevant though. I make contract arrangements in writing in advance, so I know exactly what I will be paid and the client knows what they will get in exchange. No criminal makes a contract to be euthanized in exchange for committing a crime (although I support euthanizing pretty much anyone at their request if they have a good enough reason).

Don't you think that deciding upon an action is also an acceptance of the potential consequences?

 

[Alceste]

Don't you think that deciding upon an action is also an acceptance of the potential consequences?

No.

That kind of thinking is not so different from "Well look what she's wearing - she was asking for it".

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Personally, I think killing someone is significantly more merciful than life in prison. I recently caught a news story about a seventeen year old in my country who was tried as an adult and now carries three life sentences. I'm sorry, I don't care what he did, or what his odds are of doing it again: that's cruel and unusual punishment. Just kill him. You're already destroying his life as it is, and instead you prolong it with needless suffering. If you can't be bothered to actually do the honorable thing - to reach out a hand of kindness to help the person instead of creating yet more destruction and suffering - then just kill him and be done with it.

I also find it amusing that people regard things like rape and murder to be the "most serious." Pardon, but I think white collar crime that exploits thousands upon thousands of people have earned the death sentence far more strongly than a rapist or murderer (mass genocide notwithstanding).

Ummm.. The point of punishment is to punish, not to show mercy. Life sentence is way more punishing than death.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I would suggest that it would depend on what you believe the judicial system is there to do. Is the judicial system there to punish? to prevent re-occurrence? to rehabilitate? etc

Personally I think provided all appeal options have been exhausted and (say) ten years pass (to give sufficient time for advances in the case) then for individuals 'never to be released' then yes, the death penalty should certainly be an option.

 

[BSM1]

I don't know about "moral obligation" but a reasonable society will take steps to ensure the possibility of another crime being committed is limited to the lowest possible risk. If that requires euthanizing the offender, then so be it. I have no problem with that.

I only have a problem with killing for revenge, or to appease the tumultuous, angry emotions of the victim/s, or because we think it will dissuade criminals from committing crimes, or to cause pain, suffering and anguish to the offender. Since those basically sum up the top reasons people support the death penalty, I cannot support it myself.

I agree that there is an overwhelming personal emotional involvement when someone you love is murdered of raped. This is why it is mandatory that the state protect me and others from a similar crime being committed by a person who has demonstrated that he or she has no problem taking a life. The best way to ensure this is to permanently remove that felon from this world.

Most people realize that punishing criminals will not stop crime. Do you have a source that supports your statement of the "top reasons" that people support the death penalty?

 

[Breathe]

Now now you people, don't be so harsh. Life sentence in Finland is a continious stay in a three-star hotel! Where you can study and attain degrees in a whole variety of studies! [...]

...BRB, going to Finland to commit a (white-collar) crime.

 

[Breathe]

People always whine about overpopulation.
Yet many hate the death penalty.
Strange, that.