Convince me to oppose death penalty

[HonestJoe]

As long as they don't kill, they would be fine if I'm to judge.

In that case, your concerns about people in prison being able to promote harmful ideas isn’t a legitimate reason to support the death penalty. You’d execute those how kill, even if they’re never going to write anything but leave those who don’t kill (or aren’t convicted of murder) but will (like you example of Hitler in the 1920s).

Based on what?

Judges and juries being less willing to convict in a borderline case if there is a prospect of execution and an increased push for pardons for people on death row since they’ve more at stake and a specific deadline (no pun intended). Not a certainty by any means but I don’t think there is any clear evidence that simply introducing a death penalty would automatically bring benefits on balance.

As it happens, the said victim and hero of the terror attack is a citizen of your country, Hassan Zubier.

The perp's been laughing at his victims all proceedings.

At the trial then, before he’s even been formally found guilty. That would happen regardless of whether he face execution or not. You do seem to be bouncing between various concerns and unfortunate situations, most of which aren’t really relevant to whether we have a death penalty or not.

 

[Jumi]

In that case, your concerns about people in prison being able to promote harmful ideas isn’t a legitimate reason to support the death penalty. You’d execute those how kill, even if they’re never going to write anything but leave those who don’t kill (or aren’t convicted of murder) but will (like you example of Hitler in the 1920s).

That's right.

Judges and juries being less willing to convict in a borderline case if there is a prospect of execution and an increased push for pardons for people on death row since they’ve more at stake and a specific deadline (no pun intended). Not a certainty by any means but I don’t think there is any clear evidence that simply introducing a death penalty would automatically bring benefits on balance.

Is this based on studies or do you feel that they are more likely to not find them guilty if there is a chance of death penalty? I'd maybe look at Texas, China, Iran being less likely to convict murderers?

At the trial then, before he’s even been formally found guilty. That would happen regardless of whether he face execution or not. You do seem to be bouncing between various concerns and unfortunate situations, most of which aren’t really relevant to whether we have a death penalty or not.

I only pointed at the case that you were unaware of.

 

[columbus]

I can see it doesn't make sense to you. That's all I can see. But what difficulty there is in grasping the principle I was espousing is beyond me.

Because you can't put any logical foundation under it.

Suppose Mary believes that the total number of deaths, especially of innocent people, is reduced by the real threat of Capital Punishment.

She believes that there will be less killing with CP than without even though some innocent people will be executed.

How, precisely, is offering to commit suicide on behalf of someone 95% likely to be a heinous criminal "standing up for her beliefs", or whatever you said?

I'm calling BS on your assertion.
Tom

 

[Jumi]

All right, I'd rather not spent more time thinking about this right now.

I should have taken that step back when I said I would and digest it all. I don't want to feel congested forming a new synthesis.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Escape From Penal Island.

In all seriousness, it's a logical result. Robert Heinlein discussed this exact thing, in the pair of novellas, If This Goes On... and Coventry.

I almost wish I could assign Reading to this Discussion.

Wiki - If This Goes On....

Wiki - Coventry

I thought that the penal island concept was a relatively humane and practical solution that gives failed people a chance to start over and live more normal lives than either prison or the death sentence offer. It removes the state from the role of executioner, it's relatively inexpensive, and seems to be the best shot at rehab. Some number of those people - perhaps most - will become hard working farmers or fishermen cooperating with their neighbors the be able to eat. Some won't, and can be exiled or incarcerated or dealt with in whatever manner the majority deems the most appropriate way to deal with such people, which might even be the death penalty. This would be a different kind of world than the one they left, and they would have to solve surviving in it or perishing, but I think that the idea that one has to work and cooperate to eat pretty much forces people with criminal pasts to change or perish.

The specifics I suggested may be inadequate to contain the prisoners, but that would be a problem for people with more expertise in that area to solve. It shouldn't be difficult to keep people living simply from escaping a patrolled island.

 

[Jumi]

I thought that the penal island concept was a relatively humane and practical solution that gives failed people a chance to start over and live more normal lives than either prison or the death sentence offer. It removes the state from the role of executioner, it's relatively inexpensive, and seems to be the best shot at rehab. Some number of those people - perhaps most - will become hard working farmers or fishermen cooperating with their neighbors the be able to eat. Some won't, and can be exiled or incarcerated or dealt with in whatever manner the majority deems the most appropriate way to deal with such people, which might even be the death penalty. This would be a different kind of world than the one they left, and they would have to solve surviving in it or perishing, but I think that the idea that one has to work and cooperate to eat pretty much forces people with criminal pasts to change or perish.

The specifics I suggested may be inadequate to contain the prisoners, but that would be a problem for people with more expertise in that area to solve. It shouldn't be difficult to keep people living simply from escaping a patrolled island.

I kind of like the idea on paper, but with violent individuals there is a chance of it becoming like "Lord of the flies" or another Pollsmoor prison causing unnecessary suffering. I would think it would be a popular choice among prisoners if the other one was death or being locked up in a box.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You're argument alludes to us never punishing anyone regardless of method because we cannot reach 100% certainty. I do not see why that should revolve around one method of punishment. Like my assertion with another, that suggests a subjective notion of which punishment is better.

If the punishment is rather short of 100%? Then a certainty that is also shy of 100% is acceptable.

But death is 100% a fact you cannot seem to come to terms with...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Locked in a warehouse away from everyone doesn't sound much more humane than the death penalty to me. What about if they're innocent? The same applies as to death penalty. And besides it would be difficult to write a law where they would be treated worse than others.

If they are merely warehoused? You can let them out.

But if they are dead? There is no undoing that-- something that you seem to fail to grasp.

 

[suncowiam]

If the punishment is rather short of 100%? Then a certainty that is also shy of 100% is acceptable.

But death is 100% a fact you cannot seem to come to terms with...

Death is 100% death.

That is all you're saying.

What you should be doing is extending that logic.

Death is 100% at either:
* 100% condemning an innocent person to punishment.
or
* 100% ensuring a violent offender never commits another crime again.

But you see, when you fan out the logic, it presents more percentages and paths that are not 100%.

Sorry, but you're failing to see the bigger picture.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's right.

OK. That removed what I think is the only positive reason you’ve given to support a death penalty. You might want convincing to oppose it but I’d need convincing to support it and you now seem to have nothing for that.

Is this based on studies or do you feel that they are more likely to not find them guilty if there is a chance of death penalty? I'd maybe look at Texas, China, Iran being less likely to convict murderers?

I’ve seen reports about this kind of thing in the past though I don’t recall the details. General likelihood to convict isn’t the question, it’s whether there is greater resistance to convict in capital cases.

I only pointed at the case that you were unaware of.

Yes, but it was entirely irrelevant to your point.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I thought that the penal island concept was a relatively humane and practical solution that gives failed people a chance to start over and live more normal lives than either prison or the death sentence offer. It removes the state from the role of executioner, it's relatively inexpensive, and seems to be the best shot at rehab. Some number of those people - perhaps most - will become hard working farmers or fishermen cooperating with their neighbors the be able to eat. Some won't, and can be exiled or incarcerated or dealt with in whatever manner the majority deems the most appropriate way to deal with such people, which might even be the death penalty. This would be a different kind of world than the one they left, and they would have to solve surviving in it or perishing, but I think that the idea that one has to work and cooperate to eat pretty much forces people with criminal pasts to change or perish.

The specifics I suggested may be inadequate to contain the prisoners, but that would be a problem for people with more expertise in that area to solve. It shouldn't be difficult to keep people living simply from escaping a patrolled island.

I kind of like the idea on paper, but with violent individuals there is a chance of it becoming like "Lord of the flies" or another Pollsmoor prison causing unnecessary suffering. I would think it would be a popular choice among prisoners if the other one was death or being locked up in a box.

I just finished a novel, that used the term "Outlaw" to mean "outside the law", and had similar to the above. The planet in question was mostly undeveloped (science fiction) and Outlaws were dumped on the opposite side of the planet from the settlement, at a randomized location. The planet was livable, but large enough that the dumpee was unlikely to locate a fellow outlaw. He was given basic simple tools, and not much more.

On Earth, it'd be more difficult to create such a place, as no where else on Earth can you find wilderness where humans haven't invaded already.

Perhaps on Antarctica? Give'em a parka, a couple of cans of Sterno and perhaps a penguin call?

In truth, an island close by could easily be observed 24/7 by satellite. I think you'd want to keep an eye on it, as Robert Heinlein's Coventry did, for safekeeping.

Once in a while, you'd likely need to go get everyone off the island, and sterilize the whole thing, then return them with primitive tools and whatnot.

If your intent was to keep them primitive.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Death is 100% death.

That is all you're saying.

What you should be doing is extending that logic.

Death is 100% at either:
* 100% condemning an innocent person to punishment.
or
* 100% ensuring a violent offender never commits another crime again.

But you see, when you fan out the logic, it presents more percentages and paths that are not 100%.

Sorry, but you're failing to see the bigger picture.

*sigh*

 

[Jumi]

If they are merely warehoused? You can let them out.

Yes unless they kill themselves, because it's worse than death. One youtuber, a murderer himself, talked about being housed in what was basically a box where he had minimal human contact and gave the figure 36 times higher suicide rates even in a well equipped "box". Also who comes out, might not be the person going in. Not sure if the figures he quoted are accurate, but he gave some convincing context. Also because he is an extremist during one period all his letters were confiscated without any looking into it.

But if they are dead? There is no undoing that-- something that you seem to fail to grasp.

I do grasp that.

 

[Jumi]

OK. That removed what I think is the only positive reason you’ve given to support a death penalty. You might want convincing to oppose it but I’d need convincing to support it and you now seem to have nothing for that.

All right. I wasn't out to convince anyone of this, just wanted a civil discussion on a difficult topic and it seems to have been succesfull. Though I have to apologize that I couldn't fully give my best for some of the last pages due to headaches.

I’ve seen reports about this kind of thing in the past though I don’t recall the details. General likelihood to convict isn’t the question, it’s whether there is greater resistance to convict in capital cases.

I get the idea that in the US states that have death penalty are more willing to convict also. Could be my idea is wrong.

In China it's a straightforward process, the execution vans roll out when they realize they have a guilty person in their hands. Something that actually doesn't sound that nice.

In at least some form of Sharia law, the victims family may pardon the person to be executed.

Yes, but it was entirely irrelevant to your point.

All right.

 

[Jumi]

I just finished a novel, that used the term "Outlaw" to mean "outside the law", and had similar to the above. The planet in question was mostly undeveloped (science fiction) and Outlaws were dumped on the opposite side of the planet from the settlement, at a randomized location. The planet was livable, but large enough that the dumpee was unlikely to locate a fellow outlaw. He was given basic simple tools, and not much more.

Norse pagan courts had outlaws, people who were caught in depravity were kicked out of civil society and if met outside were without protection of any law or respect accorded to human beings.

The novel sounds interesting. Care to give it's name? Reading is one of the rare pleasures I can indulge in at this time.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

And I want to stress again that yours is a personal opinion concerning punishment. Which is fine but it stops there as notion of subjectivity.

I'll take your word concerning processes. I only care about stopping the crimes and if preventing it is the answer then so be it. I have no urges to punish people. Although, I don't think there will ever be a process to prevent all crimes unless we can look into the future. So eventually, we will be back to punishment.

Statistics show it be true what the previous poster said.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

In China it's a straightforward process, the execution vans roll out when they realize they have a guilty person in their

straightforward process in China

Political opinions, eh? Let's get the liver and the kidneys and throw the rest away.

 

[suncowiam]

Statistics show it be true what the previous poster said.

Yes... I acknowledged his validity of his comment.

It still does not solve all crimes, would it now? It just prevents more crimes from occurring. Why what I alluded later in my comment which you didn't reference.

 

[Jumi]

straightforward process in China

Political opinions, eh? Let's get the liver and the kidneys and throw the rest away.

Note that the part you are quoting was about @HonestJoe 's idea that there is less desire to convict if there is a chance of the death penalty. Context matters.

Read the part after what you quoted where I said it doesn't sound nice. If you're still confused, I'm not advocating that system. Regardless of what we think about it though or the organ harvesting(which I also disagree with), it is straightforward.

Of the three I mentioned, I actually prefer the Sharia version where the victim's families have a say in execution, with some provisions. Though I'm advocating none of them.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Note that the part you are quoting was about @HonestJoe 's idea that there is less desire to convict if there is a chance of the death penalty. Context matters.

Read the part after what you quoted where I said it doesn't sound nice. If you're still confused, I'm not advocating that system. Regardless of what we think about it though or the organ harvesting(which I also disagree with), it is straightforward.

Of the three I mentioned, I actually prefer the Sharia version where the victim's families have a say in execution, with some provisions. Though I'm advocating none of them.

What does it feel like to carry all that hate in You?