What good is a "rehabilitated" murderer serving out a life sentence without parole? We're talking about the worst of the worst here. They're never seeing society again either way, so who gets anything out of this redemption?

Because it shows that the punishment has a purpose. That we don't punish people just because that's what we're "supposed" to do. Sure, isolating an undesirable from proper society is well and good in itself, but should we be satisfied merely having a killer out of sight and out of mind? Is it really worth it to lock a killer away from polite society for our own benefit without a thought as to whether or not the guy will ever learn anything from it?

And yet, they often fight to the bitter end of the appeals process to avoid death when it's their life on the line. Sorry, I just don't think most killers lack a sense of self-preservation. And I think that fact can be exploited.

so, what, kill everyone and let God sort them out? Cant you see that rehabilitation is the best means for remorse?


i think you'll find that alot of the bullshit that comes with appeals processes is the work of self-serving defense lawyers.

you still havent told me how society in general benefits from a murderer saying sorry on his deathbed

people have killed each other for CENTURIES. People still kill each other. It is not a deterrent.

I'm willing to bet you'll find a lot more sorry people in a gas chamber or an electric chair than you ever will in a regular prison population.

That may definitely be. But I think my point still stands. How many guys do you think are out there serving life in prison because they took a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty? Just because someone kills another doesn't mean they're totally disconnected from the value of their own life.

First off, it's not about them saying sorry as much as it is them being sorry.

But to answer your question, society would benefit the same way they'd benefit from the same guy being "rehabilitated" and living out his rehabilitated life alone inside a prison cell. The difference is that I think my scenario of murderers developing remorse upon their realization of their imminent death probably happens much more than their being rehabilitated.

A swift kick in the nuts might make people remorseful. Lets do that instead.

this is a horse i'd never get tired of flogging


whether they took a plea bargain or not, they have time to think of the consequences. The Big Picture, if you will.

use an example from your own life, perhaps a relationship gone wrong? (for ex.) What is the mitigating factor that leads to a person feeling remorse in a situation like that? it is Time.

Sure, but why even punish people for killing if nobody's ever going to learn anything from it? There's got to be something more to it than just merely isolating undesirables from society, because if that were the case then rehabilitation would be just as pointless as execution. We'd just let people rot in a blank room somewhere and never give them a second thought.

Keep in mind, we're talking about the worst of the worst as far as killers go. I'm definitely not advocating that anyone who commits a murder should be subject to the death penalty. There are probably plenty of killers out there who don't need drastic measures to drive them to realize what they did was wrong and why it was so. Some may even be able to be rehabilitated. But I think there are probably some crimes out there where we don't have to give the perpetrators such benefit of the doubt, and we can assume there's only one way we can be sure they'll get the message.

The main point here is.. shouldn't this be a referendum? Why is this being decided by legislators?

Answer: They're afraid of a referendum

Corganist i dont know why but you aren't seeming to acknowledge that the death penalty has been in existence for hundreds of years, yet it has done nothing to stop violent crime.

I should elaborate. I am all for people being killed for certain crimes - I just don't think the government should do it. Hence if you rob my house, I will shoot you in the kneecaps and take you out to the woods for a few days before burying you alive. There's no need for authorities - I can kill you just fine.

Killing someone to make them feel sorry is perverse. And if you get on your ridiculous moral hobby horse ill just get naked and rub european crime statistics all over my oiled body.

in "no fucking shit" news:
Execution ban good, murderer says

Considering that from 1977 to 2000, Illinois executed 12 people and exonerated 13 people off death row (some from dna evidence), it makes me wonder how many innocent people were executed before we began using dna tests. And this is just in one state? I think its more likely than not that innocent people have been executed.

I acknowledge that. I just don't think it's any kind of argument against the death penalty. It's not like throwing people in prison has been any more effective at reducing violent crime either.

I don't think there's any logic to that line of thought. First off, I think it's important to keep in mind that a lot of people who get off death row aren't necessarily innocent. A good number of them had their sentences or convictions reversed on technicalities, even though it's still fairly clear they did commit the crimes they were accused of. But anti-death penalty people treat those cases the same way they would if someone was completely exonerated by DNA.

Secondly, even assuming all the people let off death row were completely innocent, I don't see how the system working and getting them off death row before they're executed somehow makes it "more likely than not" that other innocent people have been executed. I think just as good a case can be made that the exhaustive appeals process has served its purpose exactly as it was supposed to. And let's face it, it's not like there haven't been people out there almost macabrely waiting on some state to fuck up and kill a person who could be proved innocent. If it ever happened, they'd have the media all over it. I still remember a few years back when a guy in Virginia (I think) who was a poster boy for the "innocents" on death row got executed. After his death, they ran DNA tests, and the anti-death penalty zealots were sure they finally had their wrongful execution and were about to uncork the champagne....until the DNA came back and showed that the guy actually did do it.

Thirdly, even assuming one or two innocents slipped through the cracks at some point in the past couple centuries of the death penalty, does that mean we toss the baby out with the bathwater? Like I said before, criminal investigative techniques are only getting better. With DNA and other forensic advances becoming commonplace in common crime investigation, we're going to be able to identify killers in many cases with near certainty. Whatever problems may have existed in the past, I'm not sure how they play into any argument to eliminate the death penalty now.

Yes.

Life imprisonment is a viable alternative.

Yes. That is called murder. Repeat: killing an innocent person, regardless whether it is by an individual or collective (by government or whatever) is murder.

Free societies don't murder. Moral societies don't murder. Or are we going to define this thing in primitive consequentialist terms, where murder is fine as long as "most people" aren't also murdered?

samsies!

its funny how we both zoomed right into the same statement.

I'm not excusing the death of any hypothetical innocent as being some kind of acceptable price to pay for the ability to execute the guilty. If any innocent has ever been executed, then it's an abhorrent and inexcusable thing. What I'm saying is that right now more than any time in history we have technology that prevents (and has prevented) the accidental execution of innocents and confirms the guilt of many non-innocents. And that technology only stands to improve. So I don't know exactly why we should toss out the whole death penalty now, when it's arguably as efficient as it's ever been, because of the mere possibility that injustices may have occurred in the past at some indeterminable point.

I am going to jump in and jump out, so feel free to disregard, but even if we agree that making a murderer feel sorry for what he's done has some inherent value, is that really what happens when a guy is about to get killed, himself? Does he see that what he's done is wrong, or is he just regretting that he's about to die? I'd think he'd be sorry he got caught, sorry he's going to die, not sorry he took a life because every life is precious et cetera and so forth.

Good.

I agree that with perfect efficiency, we can think about it. But then we get into my disagreement about the state doing it, which I think is too many hypotheticals for this discussion (and just sort of off topic). However, in order to support that first sentence of yours, then it must not be about efficiency in a comparative sense, but in an absolute sense.

Maybe this does touch on the hypothetical, because what is needed is perfect justice - which no state is capable of performing (or so it would seem so far). We would have to have absolute justice to even begin to argue what the correct and objective punishment should be. However, if we reached that state through whatever mechanism, then death is a perfectly acceptable penalty for certain crimes.

Dahmer? Death Penatly.

The guy who shot up 22 people on the NY subway? Death Penalty.

There wouldn't have been a need for endless appeals in cases like these. Yet Ted Bundy sat on Death Row forever because our system is fucked up

Exactly. Like I'm Hardcore said, it takes time for people to think about these things.

And I think one of the benefits to society with life imprisonment is that society doesn't kill people as a punishment.

It's truly mind boggling, even watching jczeroman and Corganist talking about it right here in the 21st century on ways for society to kill someone. It's batshit insane and a reason I dont even care about discussing this issue with anyone because its pretty cut and dry by now the complete disregard for ethics in wanting a death penalty.

Like I said earlier, even being sorry he's about to die is a lot more of a profound remorse than you'll get from a lot of life-without-parole sorts.

Yeah, I'm definitely not trying to say that the death penalty is A-OK because it's better than it used to be. I just think people understate how well the system works today (and will work in the future) and overstate largely hypothetical shortcomings that may or may not have ever manifested themselves.

That's not to say though that I wouldn't perhaps like to see the use of the death penalty curbed a bit. It seems to me a lot of the questions over the use of the death penalty could be alleviated if prosecutors would reserve pushing for it only in really serious crimes with overwhelming evidence. There are a lot of cases where we could achieve something close to "perfect justice," but a lot of death penalty cases don't exactly fit that mold.

That's assuming they ever do decide to think about it. (A big assumption, IMO)

I don't see how that's a benefit in and of itself. How is the state depriving someone of their life some egregious wrong in any circumstance, but depriving the same person of their liberty is no big deal?

Plenty of criminals who are locked up for long periods become repentant, take steps to make amends, go on to make a positive contribution to society even if they're still incarcerated etc. That's not to say all of them do, but don't pretend it doesn't happen (something that's more likely to be true with your 'moment of repentance' idea)

Firstly nobody said it's 'no big deal' except you, and there are actually degrees of severity. And execution is inherently punishment, whereas incarceration is meant to involve rehabilitation - you'll notice that corporal punishment is also not a part of the justice system in our society

It's funny how much of American society has largely turned against the death penalty, believing that it's inhumane, but yet most of our society cheers on, thanks, and "supports" our soldiers to "do their job," which was essentially killing Taliban/Iraqi soldiers when the wars in those regions started, to now killing terrorists/insurgents. I love how people will get all high & moral when it comes to executing convicted killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal, and that most of those same people wouldn't mind seeing, say, Osama Bin Laden taken out by US special forces. I don't know, maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges there, but it seems a bit hypocritical to say "OMG, it's so inhumane and sub-standard of our society to execute people who kill," while encouraging our soldiers to "Go get 'em!" and takeout insurgents/terrorists.