Boy, if paying to keep people imprisoned upsets you, wait til you see how much we law abiding citizens have to pay when the state fucks up and locks up the wrong person.
Philly just paid nearly $10 million to some guy they'd wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 30 years.
If justice was about money it would be cheaper to just shoot anyone accused of being a pick pocket, heck the cop should just shoot the accuser twice to make sure his costly time isn't wasted again. Not to forget bill the families for the bullets.
If you want to save taxpayer money, then you should be advocating for an end to the death penalty. Sentencing a person to death ends up costing significantly more than life imprisonment.
Sure, you could execute them the day after they're convicted. But that would greatly increase the number of people we let the state murder, not to mention the number of innocent people they'd be putting to death. Personally, that's not the type of society I want to be a part of.
As all government money is fungible from the perspective of the average citizen, and not all of it comes from taxing, you can't really say that "law abiding citizens" are "footing the bill". It's funny how this type of comment always comes into play when it comes to the rights of others. Not projecting this onto you specifically, but often times it comes across as "oh, we can't be fair to people because I have to pay for it! oh no!"
If you in fact did kill multiple people then sure, but that is a tiny % of people who are locked up. But then, maybe. I think most would prefer life even in that situation.
At least it's usually a costly barbarity for the state, with no perverse incentives. Though I'd argue it's not a dichotomy, and a maximum sentence combined with risk assessments that can extend a sentence beyond the maximum is state of the art.
Some societies have determined that some people have commited such abominable deeds that they simply no longer have a right to live. Doesn't sound very barbaric to me.
If someone is intent on committing crime. Say a serial killer who has killed many people, then while incarcerated continues attempting to attack and kill guards and other inmates, you would say this person should not be killed? I feel that your view is not realistic. The goal of executing criminals is not to punish them like "haha, we got you", it's to physically prevent them from continuing to cause chaos.
In high security and solitary confinement there are guards that will have to deal with them, and the inmates are afforded rights like visitation or recreation where they can gain contraband, make shanks, extort and assault inmates and other guards.
Inmates will pretend to or legitimately damage the cell or themselves to get guard attention and then assault the guards.
Study these issues further and you will find it's not simply a matter of putting someone in a single cell by themselves and now that's it, they can never harm anyone again.
There are elaborate criminal schemes that occur inside of correctional institutions.
Eventually, society will have exhausted every recourse in attempting to accommodate this person, and I say not to be sarcastic, but to present you something to think about, would you welcome a known serial killer into your home since you are so against killing them and there's no place left to put them? How much do you expect others to suffer and sacrifice for one criminal and your own perceived social justice?
That feels kind of silly to me. If there were no state, and a rando came in and murdered a few people, then your gaggle of humans tracked them down and captured them; killing them seems like a reasonable action.
Does the existence of an organized state really feel like it changes the ethics of the situation? I don't think so. Does the existence of prisons change the ethics? I don't think so either. Further I'd argue that the state going against the will of the people is unethical and an abuse of power. Lastly, murder as the ultimate sin seems like a pretty western religious oriented perspective. I don't think it holds as much weight as it used to.
The only compelling reason in my opinion that capital punishment is unethical is that our criminal justice system is so shit.
This argument is so weird to me I don't even know where to start. Are you saying that because a murderous mob would just kill someone the laws in large organized states should also be based on mob justice?
I'm not saying murderous mob. I'm saying group of humans. They don't need to be a mindless ravenous horde. They don't need to kill him on the spot.
I'm saying this is probably the conclusion that rational humans would come to if an outsider arrived, killed people, and left. They should be killed, because, even ignoring themes of justice, he's a huge outlier threat. The entire pretext that killing him is morally outrageous is not a given at all. On some level if you're gonna play ball at the extreme ends of crime, then you should be willing to accept that you're gonna fucking die if society manages to stop you.
It doesn't strike me as morally problematic to say "if you rape and murder child then we'll kill you", and then kill someone who rapes and murders a child.
The problem, again, with both our justice system and mob justice that makes these not good is that they're easily manipulated, inaccurate, and emotionally swayed. And historically super racist if you care to bring that into the discussion.
If you decide that anything some society has determined to be acceptable, you'll not find very many things to call barbaric. Certainly you'll find no cultures which engage in barbaric behaviour, which is ironic since the original meaning was basically "anyone who isn't Greek".
To hold that no culture is barbaric can be seen as a very enlightened position, but it is of course also a position that does not provide any moral guidance at all with respect to established customs, such as for example Kaluli manhood rituals where the young boys must ingest the sperm of their elders by the Anus (a practice much reviled by the nearby Etoro who instead prescribe oral ingestion).
Some other societies determined that disabled people are a drain on their limited resources and "simply no longer have a right to live". That still sounds barbaric to me.
The fact that a majority might decide to not grant fundamental rights to a minority doesn't make their killings any less barbaric.
How many millions or billions or trillions should we spend to extend let's say clinically brain-dead person's life? Is there no limit when we should stop? Should we take the money away from some other things like welfare, or food from the starving? Just so we can keep single brain dead person a live for a few more days? Even if that would cost millions?
The question is not "how many trillions should we spend on keeping someone alive" but "how much money should we spend on deliberately, actively killing someone", to which the answer is "zero".
(I don't mean to downplay the fact that there are difficult questions for working out how much money a government should invest to add one quality-adjusted life-year to their citizens, or how to calculate QALYs in the first place, but governments do manage to do that and these questions are not the level that political controversies generally focus on. Also, I'm completely ignoring the issue of national defence here, as people can disagree on military posture based on other considerations).
No, it’s society saying that the social contract is a two-way street and that if you violate your most basic obligations as a human to your fellow man, society has no obligation to you. Feel free to disagree, but it’s not just murder for the sake of it.
Of the 66 states categorized as 'very high' in the 2020 Human Development Index 12 (including Japan) use the death penalty, another 5 have it on the books but are currently in moratorium, and another 2 réserve it only for crimes committed in times of war. That's 19/66, more than a 1/4 of the most developed states (and still nearly 1/5 if you exclude the moratorium and wartime-only states). Japan is far from alone.
Japan is the biggest example of saving face I've ever seen. Incredible racism, justice system with 99% conviction rate, going right up to the edge of porn, but then blurring it out, gambling being illegal but not really at the same time, working until death.
When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.
Very short article. Japan hasn’t executed anyone in two years.
The practice is to notify the person to be executed a few hours before the execution. The claim behind the practice is so that prisoners aren’t counting down the days. The counterclaim is that surprises aren’t nice.
My guess is that there are some people who like surprises and some who don’t. Maybe they should conduct a psychological profile or just ask prisoners if they want to know or not. I suspect that the non-announcement is useful for legal system logistics as far as setting and resetting dates due to various filings.
I suspect there are not that many people who thinks "today you'll die" is a surprise that can be enjoyed. Definitely seems like a post hoc justification of a practice established for the convenience of the authorities.
Yeah, from an announcement logistics perspective it makes sense. Nobody wants to look like a dummy saying “Ok, at long last, tomorrow you die” and then the hangman calls in sick the next day and you gotta go back to the cell and say “oops, my bad, we gotta reschedule to later in the week.”
Not knowing if today will be the day your life will end is not a question over niceties. It's a form of torture. The critiques from human rights associations and the U.N. committee against Torture here aren't exactly new.
Knowing exactly the day your life will be over and being left to stew over it could also be a form of torture.
Maybe the kindest option would be to tell them they’re only getting life in prison, then kill them quickly and unexpectedly without them ever realizing it.
Maybe the death-row inmates should have thought of that before murdering someone. These aren't people plucked at random. They've cruelly and unjustly deprived someone of their lives, and a family of a loved one.
Isn't another school of thought that life imprisonment is also a form of torture? Being confined for up to 60-70 years with no hope of release is also a quite bleak future.
> Not knowing if today will be the day your life will end is not a question over niceties. It's a form of torture.
If I were on death row then this is what I'd prefer: some random day a guard comes and says "Martin, your time's now, let's go". At this point maybe I'll arrange some last affairs or send out a letter I have previously prepared, and that's it
I would consider "Martin, your time will be in a month's time" considerably more torturous. That month will be horrible.
Other people may want to prefer that month's notice; fair enough. Both methods have their own upsides and downsides, but to call one "torture" seems to be going a bit too far.
Ideally, prisoners should be allowed to choose. This seems like a small effort on the part of the prison system/government.
For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
It seems like non-announcement of a scheduling info could fall under the last sentence given the knowledge at hand.
She was detained and belatedly exonerated. That sucks. On the other hand, it has the lowest crime and incarceration rates among major developed countries. Surely it has to be doing something right? Something worth emulating even?
"Death row prisoners live in fear every morning that that day will be their last," said the lawyer for the two death row inmates Yutaka Ueda, according to a Reuters report."
So as the weeks and months pass, not knowing when is a form of psychological torture.
78 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 495 ms ] thread[1] https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-trafficking-in-persons-re...
(for what it's worth I'm against capital punishment)
Philly just paid nearly $10 million to some guy they'd wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 30 years.
Ah, no, that's not how this works.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...
Surely killing someone can be way cheaper than sustaining them for life.
Being the key word here: you do not really know and so you would not want to get shot as you might be out in 5.
Inmates will pretend to or legitimately damage the cell or themselves to get guard attention and then assault the guards.
Study these issues further and you will find it's not simply a matter of putting someone in a single cell by themselves and now that's it, they can never harm anyone again.
There are elaborate criminal schemes that occur inside of correctional institutions.
Eventually, society will have exhausted every recourse in attempting to accommodate this person, and I say not to be sarcastic, but to present you something to think about, would you welcome a known serial killer into your home since you are so against killing them and there's no place left to put them? How much do you expect others to suffer and sacrifice for one criminal and your own perceived social justice?
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...
Does the existence of an organized state really feel like it changes the ethics of the situation? I don't think so. Does the existence of prisons change the ethics? I don't think so either. Further I'd argue that the state going against the will of the people is unethical and an abuse of power. Lastly, murder as the ultimate sin seems like a pretty western religious oriented perspective. I don't think it holds as much weight as it used to.
The only compelling reason in my opinion that capital punishment is unethical is that our criminal justice system is so shit.
I'm saying this is probably the conclusion that rational humans would come to if an outsider arrived, killed people, and left. They should be killed, because, even ignoring themes of justice, he's a huge outlier threat. The entire pretext that killing him is morally outrageous is not a given at all. On some level if you're gonna play ball at the extreme ends of crime, then you should be willing to accept that you're gonna fucking die if society manages to stop you.
It doesn't strike me as morally problematic to say "if you rape and murder child then we'll kill you", and then kill someone who rapes and murders a child.
The problem, again, with both our justice system and mob justice that makes these not good is that they're easily manipulated, inaccurate, and emotionally swayed. And historically super racist if you care to bring that into the discussion.
To hold that no culture is barbaric can be seen as a very enlightened position, but it is of course also a position that does not provide any moral guidance at all with respect to established customs, such as for example Kaluli manhood rituals where the young boys must ingest the sperm of their elders by the Anus (a practice much reviled by the nearby Etoro who instead prescribe oral ingestion).
The fact that a majority might decide to not grant fundamental rights to a minority doesn't make their killings any less barbaric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
(I don't mean to downplay the fact that there are difficult questions for working out how much money a government should invest to add one quality-adjusted life-year to their citizens, or how to calculate QALYs in the first place, but governments do manage to do that and these questions are not the level that political controversies generally focus on. Also, I'm completely ignoring the issue of national defence here, as people can disagree on military posture based on other considerations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
> still nearly 1/5 if you exclude the moratorium and wartime-only states
Personally, I would prefer my country not to be in same exclusive club .
Wait until you hear about a small country called China
https://news.stanford.edu/2005/06/14/jobs-061505/
The practice is to notify the person to be executed a few hours before the execution. The claim behind the practice is so that prisoners aren’t counting down the days. The counterclaim is that surprises aren’t nice.
My guess is that there are some people who like surprises and some who don’t. Maybe they should conduct a psychological profile or just ask prisoners if they want to know or not. I suspect that the non-announcement is useful for legal system logistics as far as setting and resetting dates due to various filings.
Maybe the kindest option would be to tell them they’re only getting life in prison, then kill them quickly and unexpectedly without them ever realizing it.
Or, you know, just don’t execute people.
https://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-exec...
So... just like everyone else?
If I were on death row then this is what I'd prefer: some random day a guard comes and says "Martin, your time's now, let's go". At this point maybe I'll arrange some last affairs or send out a letter I have previously prepared, and that's it
I would consider "Martin, your time will be in a month's time" considerably more torturous. That month will be horrible.
Other people may want to prefer that month's notice; fair enough. Both methods have their own upsides and downsides, but to call one "torture" seems to be going a bit too far.
Ideally, prisoners should be allowed to choose. This seems like a small effort on the part of the prison system/government.
It seems like non-announcement of a scheduling info could fall under the last sentence given the knowledge at hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_agai...
"Death row prisoners live in fear every morning that that day will be their last," said the lawyer for the two death row inmates Yutaka Ueda, according to a Reuters report."
So as the weeks and months pass, not knowing when is a form of psychological torture.