DD Social Thread (v1)

[djr33]

John, this is an opinion. Certainly there are facts involved. The summary of the facts is this: the death penalty has problems in its implementation. The opinions are as follows:
1. The death penalty should be eliminated. These problems are too big to deal with.
2. The death penalty is fine in itself, but the implementation needs to be fixed and can be fixed.

You're clearly at (1), and I'm closer to (2) at least in theory; however, we live in the real world, so I'm happy enough to go with (1) because although my opinion hasn't changed, you're right that it certainly isn't gaining very much. I'm not saying it's gaining nothing, but I am agreeing that whatever it gains is relatively insignificant next to the problems it causes. In short, sure, let's go with a suspension of it until the system is fixed, even if that never happens.

However, none of this means either 1) the death penalty is in theory wrong/bad/etc. in theory; or 2) it couldn't ever be used well. That would be another discussion. (And perhaps not an important one.)


The trouble with this point is that in a political election, voters get to vote for or against a position, not for it with modifications, and the same applies to the candidates-- we don't get to vote for one partially and partially for the other. So if the decision is between "death penalty yes" and "death penalty no", neither one seems like the perfect answer. For me, it would be "death penalty only after the implementation is fixed".




Regarding the latest posts, it's absurd to think of the death penalty within the "correctional system" as anything to do with "correction". However, I agree with James on this that it isn't intended in any sense for correction. But more generally the prison system is awful in terms of correction. The "correctional system" is a misnomer and doesn't actually attempt that, at least not as its broadest goal. That could and should be improved; the repeat offender rate is too high and makes the prison system inefficient and congested.

[jscheuer1]

To more or less dismiss that verse as about revenge is a little disingenuous.

The death penalty is a mixture of revenge and a misguided ineffectual attempt at justice.

I'm a bit concerned though about what Bernie has been mentioning about that mass murderer getting out so soon. How can they tell that 22 years or less will be enough to prevent him from harming others again? I don't know anything about the case other than what Bernie has relayed, but if he has the facts right it's pretty amazing, and I don't mean in a good way.

[james438]

I know and knew that you see capital punishment that way and I obviously disagree. Is it safe to say that you see punishment and revenge as different things with the obvious exception of capital punishment and maybe one or two other things?

[djr33]

In terms of revenge and punishment, I see the following two situations very differently:

"X" is a convicted mass murderer (with 20 victims) who is obviously guilty (caught on tape, confessed and proud of it, still violent as much as possible within prison).

1. X is executed without a spectacle.

2. X is sentenced to the death penalty for the first 3 murders (as could be a potentially reasonable limit) and then to 17 acts of torture for the remaining 17 murders. Additionally, the execution is carried out publicly for emotional and political reasons.


(1) and (2) are wholly different to me. (2) is unreasonable in every way. (1) is a lot more reasonable.

We may still disagree on whether (1) is a good situation, but I doubt we disagree on whether (2) is worse than (1). Ok... why?


To me, (1) is about removing a person from life and perhaps denying any future life; but it's not about making it actively bad for them-- it's not about torture. Nor is it meant to correct them or scare them. There are two potential justifications:
1) this person does not belong; having violated society's laws and violated life, they no longer can be part of it; they forfeit the right to live and be cared for, to be protected, etc.
2) they do not deserve to live-- life should be taken from them, because they are bad.

These are very subtly different, and in an important way. (2) is the stronger stance. I think it's something that could be objected to. But (1) is a practical position that has nothing to do with torture.

[jscheuer1]

Daniel, the fact is that innocents are put to death. That alone should be enough. You're never going to fix that. People make mistakes. It can take years for the truth to come to light.

I agree with what you're saying about corrections. If we stopped wasting so much money, time and energy on the endless appeals and other aspects of administering the death penalty, and devoted a fraction of that effort toward improving the justice system, including corrections, then we would have something.

[bernie1227]

Daniel, the fact is that innocents are put to death. That alone should be enough. You're never going to fix that. People make mistakes. It can take years for the truth to come to light.

That is a flaw if the death penalty is used to easily, however when we are certain that the person is guilty ie, 1, or Anders Breivik, is the death penalty right or not?

[jscheuer1]

From Wikipedia:

Two teams of court-appointed psychiatrists examined Breivik prior to his trial; in the first report Breivik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and a second evaluation was commissioned following widespread criticism of the first report . . .

On 24 August 2012, Oslo District Court found Breivik sane and guilty of murdering 77 people. He was sentenced to preventive detention, a special form of prison sentence, with a term of 21 years and a minimum of 10 years, with the possibility of extension for as long as he is deemed a danger to society; the media have noted that he is unlikely to be released until much later than 21 years, and will probably remain in prison for life. This is the maximum penalty in Norway.

I think that's reasonable. Something told me the facts in this case had to be a little different than Bernie was relaying.

So it's a done deal, he killed those people. He was first diagnosed as insane, but due to public outcry he was later ruled sane. That seems fair, so now that he's sane we can kill him. Except Norway, I think wisely doesn't do that.

The problem with making an exception for someone like Breivik and killing him is, where do you stop? Governments don't work like that. There either is a death penalty or there isn't. Once there is, anyone can potentially get it.

In Breivik's case it's very possible he is insane and that the public's collective sense of revenge demanded that he not get off on that. Though there's little difference. Insanity for that is likely a life sentence as well. You can't trust someone like that to stay on his meds, and the consequences if he doesn't are too horrible to contemplate.

[djr33]

John (post 1): Yes, I agree on all of that. As I've said, for practical reasons, it's fine to suspend it. But none of that means it couldn't, in theory, be fixed.

John/Bernie: indeed the facts here are crucial, which is why I've hesitated to specifically use that example. I agree with John that the sentence, including all of the details, is reasonable. I'm a little uncertain about how they can know for sure whether if he got out he'd be dangerous again, but I suppose they'll just be cautious rather than lenient on that.

[djr33]

Welcome to the official Social Thread (v1) for Dynamic Drive!

We (the moderators) have decided to make this (and future threads like it) an official discussion for just whatever is going on every day for us, and to discuss various topics, whatever comes up.

Please keep in mind that the goal is to have fun and get to know each other a bit, but not to cause any problems. So as always flaming, spamming or anything else against the rules won't be allowed. Generally there's no official "topic" for this so nothing is "off topic" either, but try to keep things reasonable and fun!

As time goes on we'll retire the current version of the Social Thread and replace it with a new one as needed.

[jscheuer1]

Daniel, I don't see how you are ever going to fix the death penalty when it's always possible that you will kill an innocent person. Man is not all seeing and all knowing. When one or more egregious murders occur emotions run high. It's always possible that the wrong person will be swept up in the investigation and put to death. It might be many many years later that the truth comes out. As long as you haven't killed them, well it's still a horrible nightmare for them, but at least they're still alive to enjoy what's left of their life. And with the better state of affairs we both envision for corrections as a result of the end of the death penalty, they may have had at least more of an opportunity to learn and grow while in prison than under the current system.