This brings me around to another thing I would love to discuss.
The death sentence.
Personally, I would like dangerous serial killers, rapists, child molesters and people with no hope of reform or rehabilitation, who have admitted to or be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, terminated.
Why should they be a burden on honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens for the rest of their lives? Being stuffed into over crowded prisons with the possibility of escape or some form of idiotic parole from a witless judge?
If you take the life of another, harm a child, rape a woman, then your life should be forfeit. As far as I can see there is no justification for any of these actions.
However, I crave a must swifter and surer form of justice then we have today. :P
Why should they be a burden on honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens for the rest of their lives? Being stuffed into over crowded prisons with the possibility of escape or some form of idiotic parole from a witless judge?
Problem is it ends up costing more to have the death penalty because of all the appeals and various other legal costs. Not to mention the cost of supervising a death row inmate is higher. In other words they are going to be a bigger burden on taxpayers if you have the death penalty.
In Canada we have something called Dangerous Offender status. Basically if you have that (like say Paul Bernardo) you aren't getting out. I"m not saying the system is perfect but I have no problems about my country not having the death penalty.
If you take the life of another, harm a child, rape a woman, then your life should be forfeit. As far as I can see there is no justification for any of these actions.
What if in prison another inmate, say someone in for a series of non-violent crimes (say fraud or something) kills an inmate for being a child molester. Should that prisoner (the fraudster) be killed for their actions?
Likewise what about taking the life of another through your own negligence? Should a parent who forgets their kid in the car on a hot day be executed for doing so?
If you take the life of another, harm a child, rape a woman, then your life should be forfeit. As far as I can see there is no justification for any of these actions.
However, I crave a must swifter and surer form of justice then we have today. :P
I think this is a case where you have to choose between having justice or having less crime. I doubt capital punishment have much preventive effects on crime, because criminals don't plan on getting caught. Instead I think it makes the state look more like bully than the guardian it should be. This in turn increases antipathy towards law and order.
I can't argue that murderers and rapists (men can also be raped) aren't pretty shitty people, but if we, the state, start killing people, we aren't much better. Life in prison isn't a holiday anyway.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement, for even the very wise cannot see all ends."
If you take the life of another, harm a child, rape a woman, then your life should be forfeit. As far as I can see there is no justification for any of these actions.
However, I crave a must swifter and surer form of justice then we have today. :P
I certainly support a surer, but certainly NOT a swifter.
I am for the death penalty in rare cases, but there should be a process. People are too quick to condemn these days, and if you have followed the numerous college campus rape accusations these days you would learn that things are not always sure. I know that is something that turned my head.
I used to actually be more in favor of the death penalty, but I have actually begun to be less and less convinced
I think this is a case where you have to choose between having justice or having less crime. I doubt capital punishment have much preventive effects on crime, because criminals don't plan on getting caught.
That is true in many cases, but there have been studies that show some VERY big exceptions. The most notable is organized crime, in which the threat of capital punishment has actually been shown to be a good deterrent.
but if we, the state, start killing people, we aren't much better.
ugh... major pet peeve and something that I think completely distorts the nature of a political discussion. "We" are certainly NOT the state. I know a lot of people on the left like to think that of it in those terms, but in reality the state does things whether or not you or I approve.
This kind of mentality is fairly innocuous in this situation, but can be taken to extremes. For example, when the government invaded Iraq, I had absolutely nothing to do with it. I didn't vote for a single person responsible for that conflict (in fact, I never will. Its an automatic disqualifier). Yet in the eyes of multiple extremist groups, any citizen of the United States is responsible and will suffer the consequences.
I think it is important to distinguish a population of people from its government, even in stable democracies. It is the reason (as you may have noticed) that when discussing international affairs like we have on this thread I make sure to say "the Chinese government" or "the UK government" rather than "the Chinese" or "English people".
Why should they be a burden on honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens for the rest of their lives? Being stuffed into over crowded prisons with the possibility of escape or some form of idiotic parole from a witless judge?
Problem is it ends up costing more to have the death penalty because of all the appeals and various other legal costs.
This oft-cited fact is actually a very common piece of misleading information. The people who provide this information compare the cost of appeals and execution against imprisonment but fail to account for one pretty important fact: people appeal life sentences with almost the same frequency as they do death sentences.
The most interesting thing that I've noticed about discussions on capital punishment is that they are often actually about things that are related to the death penalty. For example, people seem to discuss its role as a deterrent, the financial costs, the proper role of the state, the benefits to society and, most commonly, the criminal justice system in general.
Yet really, most people's support or opposition to the death penalty simply comes down to one thing: whether or not they think it is moral to take the life of a horrible human being.
This is *certainly* not to say that the related issues are unimportant, or that they shouldn't help form one's opinion on the death penalty in terms of it being a real life policy and not late night internet philosophy sessions. In fact, the problems with the criminal justice system is the main reason why my support of the death penalty has been wavering.
In general, I think the law should allow for far more discretion on behalf of the judge. Some laws that are inflexible (such as mandatory minimum sentences) often lead to people being put in jail for sentences that certainly do NOT fit the crime.
For example. there is something colloquially referred to in the US as the Three-Strikes Law. It created mandatory harsher sentences on repeat offenders. The problem with the way some of these laws were written was that a person who was arrested twice before for robbery got caught a third time someone convicted once for burglary, once for assault and once for motor vehicle theft could be serving the same 25-to-life sentence as someone who committed grand theft auto twice and then shoplifted a set of high end golf clubs (some sets actually cost enough that their theft counts as a felony rather than simple larceny). Stealing is bad, mmmkay, but at the same time there should be a difference between theft and violent assault.
Maybe the key to understanding these issues lies in the title of the original post - 'in your country'. For example I've seen first-hand numerous examples of African "justice" that would appal anyone who doesn't understand the social and cultural background of Africa, yet seem perfectly reasonable to Africans. I suspect that some (if not many) of the various conflicts around the world are exacerbated by foreign involvement in situations that they don't understand. The same goes for things like the death penalty - it can be abhorrent to one culture yet acceptable to another. In short, I think that everything should be taken in context and that there is no 'one size fits all' solution to any problem.
@booinyoureyes - I'm in complete agreement with you on this, and you make very good point. Mandatory sentencing is inflexible and can lead to disproportionate, farcical sentences. That many people do not believe the state should have the power to execute people regardless of crime is something all too rarely brought up in debate.
I don't think any state should execute anyone. Partly because I believe it is unethical to do so, and partly because whenever the death penalty has existed there have been a lot of people executed who either were, or may well have been, innocent. While life in prison is a strong punishment, at least people can be released if the legal system gets it wrong. And it most definitely does a percentage of the time.
This oft-cited fact is actually a very common piece of misleading information. The people who provide this information compare the cost of appeals and execution against imprisonment but fail to account for one pretty important fact: people appeal life sentences with almost the same frequency as they do death sentences.
From what I've read this is accounted for but the appeals process takes a lot longer with death penalty cases. Still, if you could provide a link that supports your statement I'd appreciate it.
This oft-cited fact is actually a very common piece of misleading information. The people who provide this information compare the cost of appeals and execution against imprisonment but fail to account for one pretty important fact: people appeal life sentences with almost the same frequency as they do death sentences.
From what I've read this is accounted for but the appeals process takes a lot longer with death penalty cases. Still, if you could provide a link that supports your statement I'd appreciate it.
ugh... I wrote a paper on this topic my sophomore year of college and used a source from an organization called Justice For All, but can't seem to find the original study. Sorry about that. From what I remember they argued that while the costs for a death penalty case were certainly more than one for LWOP, the difference was not as significant. *Yoshimo voice* if memory serves (I may look for my actual paper on one of my harddrives if I get the chance) they shared a couple reasons (off the top of my head): 1. Not all LWOP cases used are actually cases that were also eligible for the death penalty. Life without parole is given for certain crimes such as kidnapping or sexual assault (which are usually not capital crimes). These are also less likely to be appealed (particularly kidnapping if memory serves) 2. The studies did not account for increased costs over time (for example, someone serving a 60 year sentence in prison will cost more in his 45th year than in his 15th, which is about the average time spent on death row)
Regardless, it still is more expensive, but I would argue that cost is a secondary matter in the criminal justice system, since I think all but the most ardent of anarchists would agree that criminal justice is one of the most important (if not THE most important) functions of government. I think there are more compelling moral arguments against the death penalty.
I don't think any state should execute anyone. Partly because I believe it is unethical to do so, and partly because whenever the death penalty has existed there have been a lot of people executed who either were, or may well have been, innocent. While life in prison is a strong punishment, at least people can be released if the legal system gets it wrong. And it most definitely does a percentage of the time.
The points you raise are precisely why my support of the death penalty is wavering. Still, the argument from the perspective of victim's rights are just as emotionally compelling.
Right now I'm for the death penalty in theory, but have serious doubts about its merit in practice.
but if we, the state, start killing people, we aren't much better.
ugh... major pet peeve and something that I think completely distorts the nature of a political discussion. "We" are certainly NOT the state. I know a lot of people on the left like to think that of it in those terms, but in reality the state does things whether or not you or I approve.
This kind of mentality is fairly innocuous in this situation, but can be taken to extremes. For example, when the government invaded Iraq, I had absolutely nothing to do with it. I didn't vote for a single person responsible for that conflict (in fact, I never will. Its an automatic disqualifier). Yet in the eyes of multiple extremist groups, any citizen of the United States is responsible and will suffer the consequences.
I think it is important to distinguish a population of people from its government, even in stable democracies. It is the reason (as you may have noticed) that when discussing international affairs like we have on this thread I make sure to say "the Chinese government" or "the UK government" rather than "the Chinese" or "English people".
That makes sense, and my post was a bit too dramatic.
Interesting. We need a way to thin the ranks of the masses of people currently in prison. I wouldn't mind using them for masses of manual labour, but doing that can put honest citizens out of work. What the hell can we do with them? They are so god damn expensive to keep in jail for 4 decades. . .
Prisons are an emotive issue, which is why Politicians always want to seem "tough on crime". Arguably politicians wanting to seem tough on things is a major cause of suffering in the world. We probably wouldn't have had the most recent Iraq war without politicians wanting to look "tough on Terror".
Back to the subject at hand, a quick google brings up a lot of comparisons between Sweden and the rest of the world. Being a lefty I know that me comparing other countries to Sweden is a trite cliche, but here goes.
They manage to maintain very low prison populations per capita despite a steady crime rate. The prison population per capita is significantly lower than that of the EU and less than 1/10th that of the US(!). Sources for this info are from Wikipedia and an article from the Guardian a while back (again I head toward lefty cliches). Most of the reasons are attributed to high levels of electronic tagging and home monitoring, an older age of criminal responsibility and shorter custodial sentences followed by well-supported probation with drug & alcohol rehab aspects.
Prisons can become part of a vicious cycle, especially if they focus on the punitive aspects of incarceration. The more that prisons are a harsh and unpleasant place, the more they force prisoners to be tough and desensitised to survive. I'm not saying that prisons should be full of puppies and candy, but the is a real danger that harsh prisons make prisoners more instituationalised and less able to cope with reintegrating in society, which contributes to reoffending.
Sweden, the paradise for us on the left by the looks of it!
'Sweden maintains a Nordic social welfare system that provides universal health care and tertiary education for its citizens. It has the world's eighth-highest per capita income and ranks highly in numerous comparisons of national performance, including quality of life, health, education, protection of civil liberties, economic competitiveness, equality, prosperity and human development.'
I also like the sound of this.
'The last war in which Sweden was directly involved was in 1814.'
For one thing we could end our ridiculous and disingenuous war on drugs. If our history has taught us anything, it's that prohibition doesn't work. Legalize and regulate everything, make the legal age 21, and keep the real criminals in jail.
BOOM! Thank you. I've been waiting for this to come up. I don't mind marijuana being legalized and regulated, I'm not to sure about more serious, hard core drugs such as Cocaine however.
However, if you legalize it, you can tax it, regulate it's use, the price drops like a rock because it's not dangerous to grow and smuggle around now. Not to mention you immediately weaken the drug cartels. . . legalize their product and their profits will essentially end. . .
That's the thing. As it stands, people who want to do cocaine get it at will. The war hasn't worked, isn't working, and isn't ever going to. Legalizing it will drastically reduce government expenses, raise untold riches in tax revenue, (tax the heck out of controlled substances, as we do with cigarettes), and effectively reduce, if not all but eliminate drug violence. Do you see anybody bootlegging liquor anymore?
Damn straight. The tax has to be high enough to discourage use but not so high that it keeps the cartels in business. Yes, there is a whole 'moral' issue as well, but that being said, the war on drugs is hardly moral in many cases. It puts the police and agents in harms way, catches innocent people in the cross fire and could all be prevented. Good luck with ever getting any of that past the 'Concerned Women of America' and all the other conservative and right wing groups though. They'd rather continue the senseless violence.
Not overtaxing things can and does become an issue past a certain point. Smuggling of cigarettes is actually pretty common in the UK, though I'm not aware of any violence around it.
The "Harm Reduction" approach to drugs seems hugely sensible. Legalise it, regulate it, tax it. As @jackjack says, if people want drugs they can usually get them. If they can't get them they often get an inferior alternative which puts them even more at risk. Standardised doses of a pure product takes out much of the risk of overdose, contamination or getting something different than expected. Needle exchanges or better yet single-use disposables reduce the risk of abscesses, endocarditis and other infections. The War on Drugs doesn't help many of the victims - the addicts.
That and the fact that in developed nations we see a fairly one-sided aspects of the Drug Empire. While there is drug violence in many US and European cities it pales compared to "Drug Wars" that surround production. Mexico's drug War has killed about 100,000 people and displaced more than a million since 2006. Various other terrorist organisations including the Taliban and FARC use narcotics to fund their campaigns of violence.
I thought I'd copy/paste one of my favorite speeches from "The Wire" about the War on Drugs from a different perspective: Major Colvin: "This drug thing, this ain't police work. No, it ain't. I mean, I can send any fool with a badge and a gun up on them corners and jack a crew and grab vials. But policing? I mean, you call something a war and pretty soon everybody gonna be running around acting like warriors. They gonna be running around on a damn crusade, storming corners, slapping on cuffs, racking up body counts. And when you at war, you need a f@#~ing enemy. And pretty soon, damn near everybody on every corner is your f@~#ing enemy. And soon the neighborhood that you're supposed to be policing, that's just occupied territory."
While I don't like a country having a death sentence, I don't agree in sending prisoners to the jail, having food and a place to sleep payed by the government. Nope. I think it would be better if you had to pay for your own food in jail, and around 100 US$ a month for living there. If you can't afford so, rot on a hole on the ground until you die of starvation. That would fix the problem of jails (literally) spending money on prisoners they'll later release.
About drugs and their legalization... I think you all need to hear the word 'Argentina' a place where most (and by most I mean 55%, since the rest are political or bank assaults, etc) of the crimes are made by people under the effects of drugs (or either alcohol), mostly for money (to buy more drugs/alcohol) and/or because they've lost perception of reality. Does someone think that is going to change with the legalization of drugs? I think not, and otherwise, it would increase, since people won't be taken to jail (even if this is done in _very_ small numbers) for consuming drugs, and our juridical system is already a junk and manipulated for the politicians' desires. Also, it is a somehow consumerist point of view I disagree with.
About drugs and their legalization... I think you all need to hear the word 'Argentina' a place where most (and by most I mean 95%, since the rest are political or bank assaults, etc) of the crimes are made by people under the effects of drugs (or either alcohol), mostly for money (to buy more drugs/alcohol) and/or because they've lost perception of reality.
I'd be very interested in seeing a source for this.
Comments
The death sentence.
Personally, I would like dangerous serial killers, rapists, child molesters and people with no hope of reform or rehabilitation, who have admitted to or be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, terminated.
Why should they be a burden on honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens for the rest of their lives? Being stuffed into over crowded prisons with the possibility of escape or some form of idiotic parole from a witless judge?
If you take the life of another, harm a child, rape a woman, then your life should be forfeit. As far as I can see there is no justification for any of these actions.
However, I crave a must swifter and surer form of justice then we have today. :P
In Canada we have something called Dangerous Offender status. Basically if you have that (like say Paul Bernardo) you aren't getting out. I"m not saying the system is perfect but I have no problems about my country not having the death penalty. What if in prison another inmate, say someone in for a series of non-violent crimes (say fraud or something) kills an inmate for being a child molester. Should that prisoner (the fraudster) be killed for their actions?
Likewise what about taking the life of another through your own negligence? Should a parent who forgets their kid in the car on a hot day be executed for doing so?
I can't argue that murderers and rapists (men can also be raped) aren't pretty shitty people, but if we, the state, start killing people, we aren't much better. Life in prison isn't a holiday anyway.
I am for the death penalty in rare cases, but there should be a process. People are too quick to condemn these days, and if you have followed the numerous college campus rape accusations these days you would learn that things are not always sure. I know that is something that turned my head.
I used to actually be more in favor of the death penalty, but I have actually begun to be less and less convinced
This kind of mentality is fairly innocuous in this situation, but can be taken to extremes. For example, when the government invaded Iraq, I had absolutely nothing to do with it. I didn't vote for a single person responsible for that conflict (in fact, I never will. Its an automatic disqualifier). Yet in the eyes of multiple extremist groups, any citizen of the United States is responsible and will suffer the consequences.
I think it is important to distinguish a population of people from its government, even in stable democracies. It is the reason (as you may have noticed) that when discussing international affairs like we have on this thread I make sure to say "the Chinese government" or "the UK government" rather than "the Chinese" or "English people".
The most interesting thing that I've noticed about discussions on capital punishment is that they are often actually about things that are related to the death penalty. For example, people seem to discuss its role as a deterrent, the financial costs, the proper role of the state, the benefits to society and, most commonly, the criminal justice system in general.
Yet really, most people's support or opposition to the death penalty simply comes down to one thing: whether or not they think it is moral to take the life of a horrible human being.
This is *certainly* not to say that the related issues are unimportant, or that they shouldn't help form one's opinion on the death penalty in terms of it being a real life policy and not late night internet philosophy sessions. In fact, the problems with the criminal justice system is the main reason why my support of the death penalty has been wavering.
In general, I think the law should allow for far more discretion on behalf of the judge. Some laws that are inflexible (such as mandatory minimum sentences) often lead to people being put in jail for sentences that certainly do NOT fit the crime.
For example. there is something colloquially referred to in the US as the Three-Strikes Law. It created mandatory harsher sentences on repeat offenders. The problem with the way some of these laws were written was that a person who was arrested twice before for robbery got caught a third time someone convicted once for burglary, once for assault and once for motor vehicle theft could be serving the same 25-to-life sentence as someone who committed grand theft auto twice and then shoplifted a set of high end golf clubs (some sets actually cost enough that their theft counts as a felony rather than simple larceny). Stealing is bad, mmmkay, but at the same time there should be a difference between theft and violent assault.
This sort of legal dynamic actually comes up often in drug related cases. In fact, two high profile senators from both major parties are actually coming together to make significant changes to these overly rigid sentencing laws http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cory-booker-rand-paul-plan-to-take-on-drug-war-in-2014/
For example I've seen first-hand numerous examples of African "justice" that would appal anyone who doesn't understand the social and cultural background of Africa, yet seem perfectly reasonable to Africans.
I suspect that some (if not many) of the various conflicts around the world are exacerbated by foreign involvement in situations that they don't understand.
The same goes for things like the death penalty - it can be abhorrent to one culture yet acceptable to another.
In short, I think that everything should be taken in context and that there is no 'one size fits all' solution to any problem.
I don't think any state should execute anyone. Partly because I believe it is unethical to do so, and partly because whenever the death penalty has existed there have been a lot of people executed who either were, or may well have been, innocent. While life in prison is a strong punishment, at least people can be released if the legal system gets it wrong. And it most definitely does a percentage of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ferguson
While I agree it might be questionable to execute people, what about in situations when it DOES have it right? ( Playing devils advocate a little )
1. Not all LWOP cases used are actually cases that were also eligible for the death penalty. Life without parole is given for certain crimes such as kidnapping or sexual assault (which are usually not capital crimes). These are also less likely to be appealed (particularly kidnapping if memory serves)
2. The studies did not account for increased costs over time (for example, someone serving a 60 year sentence in prison will cost more in his 45th year than in his 15th, which is about the average time spent on death row)
Regardless, it still is more expensive, but I would argue that cost is a secondary matter in the criminal justice system, since I think all but the most ardent of anarchists would agree that criminal justice is one of the most important (if not THE most important) functions of government. I think there are more compelling moral arguments against the death penalty. The points you raise are precisely why my support of the death penalty is wavering. Still, the argument from the perspective of victim's rights are just as emotionally compelling.
Right now I'm for the death penalty in theory, but have serious doubts about its merit in practice.
Back to the subject at hand, a quick google brings up a lot of comparisons between Sweden and the rest of the world. Being a lefty I know that me comparing other countries to Sweden is a trite cliche, but here goes.
They manage to maintain very low prison populations per capita despite a steady crime rate. The prison population per capita is significantly lower than that of the EU and less than 1/10th that of the US(!). Sources for this info are from Wikipedia and an article from the Guardian a while back (again I head toward lefty cliches). Most of the reasons are attributed to high levels of electronic tagging and home monitoring, an older age of criminal responsibility and shorter custodial sentences followed by well-supported probation with drug & alcohol rehab aspects.
Prisons can become part of a vicious cycle, especially if they focus on the punitive aspects of incarceration. The more that prisons are a harsh and unpleasant place, the more they force prisoners to be tough and desensitised to survive. I'm not saying that prisons should be full of puppies and candy, but the is a real danger that harsh prisons make prisoners more instituationalised and less able to cope with reintegrating in society, which contributes to reoffending.
'Sweden maintains a Nordic social welfare system that provides universal health care and tertiary education for its citizens. It has the world's eighth-highest per capita income and ranks highly in numerous comparisons of national performance, including quality of life, health, education, protection of civil liberties, economic competitiveness, equality, prosperity and human development.'
I also like the sound of this.
'The last war in which Sweden was directly involved was in 1814.'
We need a lot more countries like this. . .
However, if you legalize it, you can tax it, regulate it's use, the price drops like a rock because it's not dangerous to grow and smuggle around now. Not to mention you immediately weaken the drug cartels. . . legalize their product and their profits will essentially end. . .
The "Harm Reduction" approach to drugs seems hugely sensible. Legalise it, regulate it, tax it. As @jackjack says, if people want drugs they can usually get them. If they can't get them they often get an inferior alternative which puts them even more at risk. Standardised doses of a pure product takes out much of the risk of overdose, contamination or getting something different than expected. Needle exchanges or better yet single-use disposables reduce the risk of abscesses, endocarditis and other infections. The War on Drugs doesn't help many of the victims - the addicts.
That and the fact that in developed nations we see a fairly one-sided aspects of the Drug Empire. While there is drug violence in many US and European cities it pales compared to "Drug Wars" that surround production. Mexico's drug War has killed about 100,000 people and displaced more than a million since 2006. Various other terrorist organisations including the Taliban and FARC use narcotics to fund their campaigns of violence.
I thought I'd copy/paste one of my favorite speeches from "The Wire" about the War on Drugs from a different perspective:
Major Colvin: "This drug thing, this ain't police work. No, it ain't. I mean, I can send any fool with a badge and a gun up on them corners and jack a crew and grab vials. But policing? I mean, you call something a war and pretty soon everybody gonna be running around acting like warriors. They gonna be running around on a damn crusade, storming corners, slapping on cuffs, racking up body counts. And when you at war, you need a f@#~ing enemy. And pretty soon, damn near everybody on every corner is your f@~#ing enemy. And soon the neighborhood that you're supposed to be policing, that's just occupied territory."
About drugs and their legalization... I think you all need to hear the word 'Argentina' a place where most (and by most I mean 55%, since the rest are political or bank assaults, etc) of the crimes are made by people under the effects of drugs (or either alcohol), mostly for money (to buy more drugs/alcohol) and/or because they've lost perception of reality. Does someone think that is going to change with the legalization of drugs? I think not, and otherwise, it would increase, since people won't be taken to jail (even if this is done in _very_ small numbers) for consuming drugs, and our juridical system is already a junk and manipulated for the politicians' desires. Also, it is a somehow consumerist point of view I disagree with.