NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it so difficult to conceive of a prison which aims to turn you into a productive and useful member of society (even if it keeps you locked up)?

Why is it that so many people irrationally believe the primary focus of prisons should be on punishing prisoners so harshly that they come out of prison as hardened criminals set to re-offend, after initially entering prison for a minor offence, rather than on rehabilitating them? It makes absolutely no sense.

Well now, It seems that I have already had this out at least once on here but here we go.....


Prisions, at least in this country(UK) still run on the model of rehabilitation that the Victorians brought us. It seems though that most people mistakenly belive that a prision is for punishment.

Now I think is the time for words and to sort out which model works for us, rehabilitation, or punishment?

Is it so difficult to conceive of a prison which aims to turn you into a productive and useful member of society (even if it keeps you locked up)?

Why is it that so many people irrationally believe the primary focus of prisons should be on punishing prisoners so harshly that they come out of prison as hardened criminals set to re-offend, after initially entering prison for a minor offence, rather than on rehabilitating them? It makes absolutely no sense.

I de facto QFTed you without even looking at your post.

I may add a thing: I've had a talk with dr.Luigi Pagano, which is the Provveditore Regionale (Regional Supervisor) for prisons in Milan and Lombardy. He told me that 80% of the inmates here are recidives; this is because - he said - the prison system is failing to rehabilitate. Also, former inmates who get sentenced and jailed again usually escalate the type of crimes. First they get sentenced as small pushers of illicit drugs. The second time they get sentencet for breaking and entering and theft. The third time for assault and robbery. The fourth time, it's attempted homicide.

So, a non-rehabilitating jail is equal to a place where criminals are created.

It is interesting to note the three most populations countries in the world all retain the death penalty.

And which three countries would these be ?

The rest of the world can bitch and moan all it wants. We'll keep on doing whatever we damn well please.

You keep repeating that, maybe you'll start beleiving it.

I may add a thing: I've had a talk with dr.Luigi Pagano, which is the Provveditore Regionale (Regional Supervisor) for prisons in Milan and Lombardy. He told me that 80% of the inmates here are recidives; this is because - he said - the prison system is failing to rehabilitate. Also, former inmates who get sentenced and jailed again usually escalate the type of crimes. First they get sentenced as small pushers of illicit drugs. The second time they get sentencet for breaking and entering and theft. The third time for assault and robbery. The fourth time, it's attempted homicide.

So, a non-rehabilitating jail is equal to a place where criminals are created.

I'm not at all surprised.

And yet many people don't seem to think of that. They insist that prisoners should be treated with the utmost harshness, and don't bother to consider the obvious fact that this makes them more dangerous to society.

I was summing up Athenae Magnus' point, and making fun of it a bit.

Sorry, I was skimming rather quickly - thought it seemed a little out of character for you.

And that is relevant... how, exactly?

You can't find any other criterion, so you latch on to that, do you?

I find that rather amusing.

It is just an interesting fact I'd thought I'd point out.



Oh, I think eventually the US will catch up with the rest of the Western world (and much of Africa) in terms of human rights. They're getting there, very slowly. And in the meantime, of course, the US has dropped behind Rwanda...

We will not ever become as weak as Europe. And that is what Europe is right now. Weak.


I'm not interested in debating it with you, though. You've shown time and time again that you simply react on the basis of your primitive instincts, rather than reason. There's no point in discussing an issue with someone if you can't reason with them, and, in your case, it would be a waste of time.

You know what? I'm sick of all your, and others, European haughty attitudes. You have all grown weak, so cover your asses by talking down to the rest of world. Keep jacking each other off about how your weakness is a good thing. You need to wake the fuck up and smell the roses. And get off your goddamn high horse and stop acting like a haughty prick.

Quoting Slobodan Milosevic now?

He said that?

And which three countries would these be ?

In order of most populous:
China
India
United States



You keep repeating that, maybe you'll start beleiving it.

I already believe it. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

I'm not at all surprised.

And yet many people don't seem to think of that. They insist that prisoners should be treated with the utmost harshness, and don't bother to consider the obvious fact that this makes them more dangerous to society.

And if they repeat and attempt to kill someone, or actually kill someone, execute the prisoner and be done with it.

If that's what you call justice then I want no part of it.


I'm wearing 5 items of clothing, counting my socks as one item, not counting my belt or my glasses. Why don't you try and intuit what they are and what they look like? I know that you'll be able to say that I'm lying if you get it wrong, but I'd be interested to see if you're right about this whole 'first guess is probably right' thing for myself.

Lets see.

So you already said socks as one item..
And you're Irish, I think, so you may be wearing a kilt, or something...

1. Socks (as you said)
2. Underwear
3. Pants
4. undershirt/short-sleeved shirt
5. Long sleeved shirt/jacket

We will not ever become as weak as Europe. And that is what Europe is right now. Weak.

In what area(s) ? As far as I know the USA only has military superiority. If that is your only criterion for determining strength or weakness, I fear you are insane.

We will not ever become as weak as Europe. And that is what Europe is right now. Weak.

When Europe overtakes America as the economic powerhouse and superpower talk to me then.



You know what? I'm sick of all your, and others, European haughty attitudes. You have all grown weak, so cover your asses by talking down to the rest of world. Keep jacking each other off about how your weakness is a good thing. You need to wake the fuck up and smell the roses. And get off your goddamn high horse and stop acting like a haughty prick.


Oh please, you of all people are one to talk.

For someone who dislikes Christians and Christianity you sure do have a hard-on for the Bible.

:rolleyes:


Mature.


I quote from various works of philosophy when it suits my interests. And I lik throwing the rights own holy book at them to show them their hypocrisy.

This is definately an awesome & terrible power for any government to possess, but I believe that it is indisputable that there are people that are evil personified, as well as completely beyond any redemption. While enforcing the death penalty is (like humanity) anything but infallible, what to do with these depraved, consciousless, soulless M.F.'er's!?

I believe the best of all possible worlds would be that they all meet the same wonderful, glorious demise as Jeffery Dahmer!!! A broomstick up the colon & through the abdomen by another con in prison, or something along the same lines. These people are detested & reviled even by the most unseemly of chacters!

I say, quit coddling & protecting them. Put them in the general population of the toughest prison with the worst of the worst & just let nature take it's course.

This is definately an awesome & terrible power for any government to possess, but I believe that it is indisputable that there are people that are evil personified, as well as completely beyond any redemption. While enforcing the death penalty is (like humanity) anything but infallible, what to do with these depraved, consciousless, soulless M.F.'er's!?

I believe the best of all possible worlds would be that they all meet the same wonderful, glorious demise as Jeffery Dahmer!!! A broomstick up the colon & through the abdomen by another con in prison, or something along the same lines. These people are detested & reviled even by the most unseemly of chacters!

I say, quit coddling & protecting them. Put them in the general population of the toughest prison with the worst of the worst & just let nature take it's course.

'Evil personified', 'Soulless'
I guess assuming such attributes makes it easier to kill them, hu?
Do you realize in what kind if denial you are? Do you realize just how dangerous it is to de-humanize ANY human?

'Evil personified', 'Soulless'
I guess assuming such attributes makes it easier to kill them, hu?
Do you realize in what kind if denial you are? Do you realize just how dangerous it is to de-humanize ANY human?

Psh. Dehumanization never hurt anybody....


*shifty eyes*

All people are people. If someone took a life they do deserve punishment. However I do not think that justifies taking another human life. And I definately believe that such power should not be given to the government to decide.

Only the most barbaric nations still have the death penalty.

Only the most barbaric nations still have the death penalty.

Yeup.

In what area(s) ? As far as I know the USA only has military superiority. If that is your only criterion for determining strength or weakness, I fear you are insane.

Economic, military, technological, research and development, mental toughness- we don't rely on the government for handouts.

I will say Europe has a damn good metal bands, though. :)

When Europe overtakes America as the economic powerhouse and superpower talk to me then.


When will that be?



Only the most barbaric nations still have the death penalty.

Oh please.

You say that like its a bad thing. So called 'barbarians' have toppled countless 'civilized' societies in the past.

When will that be?


From the looks of things, soon. Id say....within the next 50 years.



Oh please.

You say that like its a bad thing.

This is telling.

So called 'barbarians' have toppled countless 'civilized' societies in the past.

And there are reasons for that, namely being that the barbarians werent always really barbarians and that the civilized societies werent really all that civilized.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh-kay . . .

Know a lot of good mediums, do you?

The victim could stipulate in his will that he would want the death penalty imposed on their murderer. The heir would also be considered a victim of the murderer.

Though I hate to say it, I do believe that I and New Mittani may actually agree on something. I believe that the DP is necessary for some crimes that are of a serious nature, either against an individual or society as a whole. I also believe that execution should be public, but only in certain cases. Giving people a chance to make a speech in public would not be permitted for people have committed crimes against the state. Giving your enemies propaganda opportunities is just quite fantastically stupid.

Although it is true that some innocent people would be executed, the state should exert real and genuine efforts to ensure a fair trial, including using the most sophisticated means available to gather evidence. Justice should not be fast, it should be thorough and sure. I would not have a US style death row (execution itself one the decision has been made would be quick and to the point, literally) but the actual trial itself would be conducted to the highest possible standards rather than simply trying to have a show trial or “nail the guy we know did it because he looks guilty” and an appeals system would also exist, but a lot more straightforward form, with access to the highest authorities.

Also when a crime has been committed that can carry the DP, that should be the penalty, end of. 1st Degree Murder is just that, end of. If the penalty is death, then death it is. If a murder thinks he might get off with a prison sentence “because they will never actually pull the trigger” then the deterrent is lost and the law and the ability of the state to enforce it seems ineffectual and, more importantly, completely unjust...How come some are let off with prison whilst others go down? Everyone is equal before the law.

The method of execution would be direct (not lethal injection). You should not pretend that that what we are doing is anything other than what it is. You are taking life. If we are not prepared to face what we are doing, then you are being nothing less than hypocritical and existing in an ethical vacuum, so are unsuitable for such a position of responsibility.

For me the DP works on several levels. It is a deterrent when the law is actually implemented, and it is just for certain crimes. Also the population feel more protected and that the law is willing to stand up for them and protect them and society from threats to their person and their society.

Although it is true that some innocent people would be executed

No matter what else you say, as long as this is the case the death penalty cannot be justified.

The victim could stipulate in his will that he would want the death penalty imposed on their murderer. The heir would also be considered a victim of the murderer.

Victims are not usually the best people to consult when deciding on punishments. You may have noticed that many victims or their families have commented that sentences were too lenient - how often do you hear that they thought it was too harsh?

No matter what else you say, as long as this is the case the death penalty cannot be justified.

If there is nothing that can be said then what is the point in debate?

We will not ever become as weak as Europe.

God willing!

You know what? I'm sick of all your, and others, European haughty attitudes. You have all grown weak, so cover your asses by talking down to the rest of world. Keep jacking each other off about how your weakness is a good thing. You need to wake the fuck up and smell the roses. And get off your goddamn high horse and stop acting like a haughty prick.


Trollgaard, you're welcome to your opinion of Europeans in general, though you should express it less aggressively; but your description of this particular world citizen is not only way off-base, it's also flaming. Cut it out.

Victims are not usually the best people to consult when deciding on punishments. You may have noticed that many victims or their families have commented that sentences were too lenient - how often do you hear that they thought it was too harsh?

I don't care whether or not one thinks that they are too harsh or too lenient; the criminal owes a debt to them that they should repay, not to some abstract society. (Hence why I oppose punishing people for, say, smoking weed or whoring themselves.) I think there would have to be some level of maximum punishment depending on the crime, since it wouldn't make sense if the restitution for stealing a pen was death, but I think it should be the victim's choice how close to the maximum level of punishment they want to pursue.

Though I hate to say it, I do believe that I and New Mittani may actually agree on something.

"I'm not so bad, once you get to know me." -- Agent Smith, The Matrix Revolutions :cool:

No matter what else you say, as long as this is the case the death penalty cannot be justified.

No, actually what cannot be justified is refusing to impose punishments that fit the crime. What can't be justified is equating, say, an unplanned killing during the course of a robbery with Josef Stalin's killing ten million Ukrainians when it comes to punishment, since both would be eligible for at most life imprisonment in the absence of capital punishment.

And what really can't be justified is the insufferably arrogant self-righteousness of the anti-capital punishment advocate. So get this through your heads: you are not morally superior to those who disagree with you. If anything, you are morally inferior for even imagining that Pol Pot and some street thug don't warrant different penalties.

The odds of frying an innocent man are too low to warrant letting killers escape with their lives. It is an acceptable risk.

In order of most populous:
China
India
United States


Aha, Populous, definatly not the same as popular.

@New Mitanni:
Being against the death penalty isn't even close to thinking Pol Pot and some street thug deserve the same punishment.

If there is nothing that can be said then what is the point in debate?

Debate is for issues where there are two sides to an argument. Here, there is just one; the right side.

The odds of frying an innocent man are too low to warrant letting killers escape with their lives. It is an acceptable risk.

Really?

So tell me: in all your life, I take it you have never seen a man released from prison after serving a sentence that it's finally accepted they didn't commit?

Never seen people released because it becomes clear that the police lied; the 'expert witnesses' were talking out of their backsides; evidence emerges that the prisoner couldn't possibly have been there at the time the crime was committed?

These things are far too common, and far from being the 'acceptable risk' that you would have us believe. It doesn't matter if you send 1,000 brutal murderers to their death; the instant you send 1 innocent man, the penalty becomes completely unjust.

And what really can't be justified is the insufferably arrogant self-righteousness of the anti-capital punishment advocate. So get this through your heads: you are not morally superior to those who disagree with you.

Sorry, but the reason you perceive that is because there is a high ground here, and you're at the bottom of it; you place a desire for revenge and blood lust above doing the morally right thing.

Sorry, I was skimming rather quickly - thought it seemed a little out of character for you.
Yay, I have a reputation!
The odds of frying an innocent man are too low to warrant letting killers escape with their lives. It is an acceptable risk.

Yeah, it sure would be awful to let killers escape with their lives into life imprisonment. :rolleyes:

No, actually what cannot be justified is refusing to impose punishments that fit the crime. What can't be justified is equating, say, an unplanned killing during the course of a robbery with Josef Stalin's killing ten million Ukrainians when it comes to punishment, since both would be eligible for at most life imprisonment in the absence of capital punishment.

See, the problem is that you're talking retribution for a crime (which can become vendetta), while I, as anti-death-penalty, talk about efficiency in protecting the society and ethical behaviour of the State.

As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the world blind".

If the State says "I will kill those who killed", then the State becomes a killer himself - while, of course, refusing to apply its own laws to himself. This is ethically wrong. If a State has no better ethical standards than those of a criminal, then that State needs huge reforms immediately.


And what really can't be justified is the insufferably arrogant self-righteousness of the anti-capital punishment advocate. So get this through your heads: you are not morally superior to those who disagree with you.


I don't think I'm "morally superior" to you. I just think you're wrong. What I really can't stand is what you say here below:

If anything, you are morally inferior for even imagining that Pol Pot and some street thug don't warrant different penalties.

People don't warrant "different penalties". Their actions maybe. What is the purpose of law anyway? Not to exact vendetta. Its purpose is to keep society working, and to protect the "weak" ones.

Now I'll try a counterexample based on your theory. Let's say you have a criminal who kills 3 people. Let's say you give him death penalty. Then, what do you give to someone who's killed 6? Kill him twice? Less pain for the three-times homicide than for the six-times homicide?
You'll have a maximum level of punishment anyway (let's say the most painful and gruesome you can think of). Is this going to deter those who already have reached the criminal level that awards the maximum penalty? NO. Is this going to bring the killed ones back? NEITHER. Is this going to allow State-sponsored vendetta and sadism? YES. Is this an example of your claimed "moral superiority"? Well... maybe you should think a bit about this.

Take the worst criminal you can imagine. Has the State (any reasonabily well-functioning State) the means to keep him isolated from society, so to prevent any further harm, without killing him? I think it has.

Also, death penalty is totally inefficient. Italy, an abolitionist State with that small problem called mafia, has seen in the last 15 years the number of homicides drop from about 1500/year (early '90s) to current about 350/year. The USA, a State with death penalty, is the G8 State with the highest homicide/population ratio. Think about it: death penalty doesn't work.

Maybe I'm morally inferior for not supporting State-sponsored homicide, but someone who talks without thinking about the consequences of his ideas is intellectually inferior, methinks.

the criminal owes a debt to them that they should repay, not to some abstract society.


1.The "society" isn't that "abstract" after all. The "society" is a set of individuals - which of course aren't abstract - plus rules and purpose.

2.I strongly reject the "debt" concept. Let's say an innocent man serves 5 years in jail for robbery because of a judiciary error.With the "debt" concept, he would be in credit of a five-years-worth crime. So he'd be justified to go out there and rob. This is because of the reciprocity you should have in justice and debts/credits.
The point is, it is ethically wrong to rob (because it is antisocial): hence you must not rob, plain and simple (Kant's cathegorical imperative iirc).
This is why the "punishment" for a crime should be aimed at rehabilitation and, until rehabilitation has been completed (can be, of course, never), the State should protect the society (and the individuals which society is made of) by isolating the criminal from society itself (that is, imprisonment).

He said that?
I think that his thought about Kosovo was that, more or less. A little joke on you, my friend. ;)

Anyway, about the weakness of Europe:

source: CIA factbook.

population:
4 European Union 491,018,677 July 2008 est.
5 United States 303,824,646 July 2008 est.

life expectancy:
42 European Union 78.51 2008 est.
47 United States 78.14 2008 est.

GDP, purchasing power parity
2 European Union $ 14,450,000,000,000 2007 est.
3 United States $ 13,860,000,000,000 2007 est.

real growth rate
163 European Union 3.00 2007 est.
183 United States 2.20 2007 est.

labour force
4 European Union 222,400,000 2006 est.
5 United States 153,100,000 2007 est.

industrial production growth
125 European Union 2.60 2006 est.
168 United States 0.50 2007 est.

current account balance (no EU entry, just giving the bottom of the list)
154 Portugal $ -18,530,000,000 2007 est.
155 South Africa $ -20,060,000,000 2007 est.
156 Romania $ -22,600,000,000 2007
157 France $ -35,940,000,000 2007 est.
158 Turkey $ -36,270,000,000 2007 est.
159 Greece $ -36,400,000,000 2007 est.
160 Australia $ -50,960,000,000 2007 est.
161 Italy $ -57,940,000,000 2007 est.
162 United Kingdom $ -111,000,000,000 2007 est.
163 Spain $ -126,300,000,000 2007 est.
164 United States $ -747,100,000,000 2007 est.

internet hosts
1 European Union 50,500,000 NA
15 United States 3,950,000 2007

EUR/USD rate, last 5 years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=EUR&to=USD&amt=1&t=5y


Clearly, having the death penalty doesn't make a country "stronger".

Debate is for issues where there are two sides to an argument. Here, there is just one; the right side.


Ah, now I see your point...

ME RIGHT, YOU WRONG!!!!

How incredibly profound and mature.

Ah, now I see your point...


also:

YOU LEFT, ME RIGHT!
YOU INFIDEL, ME BELIEVER!
YOU THERE, ME HERE!
...

Humanity hasn't changed much in the last 20000 years, after all.

also:

YOU LEFT, ME RIGHT!
YOU INFIDEL, ME BELIEVER!
YOU THERE, ME HERE!
...

Humanity hasn't changed much in the last 20000 years, after all.

At least we have personal hygience now. Small blessings and what not.

There is no argument for the death penalty except vengance.

At least we have personal hygience now. Small blessings and what not.
Also tea and potato crisps.

Never seen people released because it becomes clear that the police lied; the 'expert witnesses' were talking out of their backsides; evidence emerges that the prisoner couldn't possibly have been there at the time the crime was committed?

These things are far too common, and far from being the 'acceptable risk' that you would have us believe. It doesn't matter if you send 1,000 brutal murderers to their death; the instant you send 1 innocent man, the penalty becomes completely unjust.

Reducing punishments because the judicial system has a record of failure is failing to address the real issue. Improve the judicial system.

I believe not only in the death penalty but think we should televise ALL executions and use less humane forms to dispatch the guilty. Also, limit the appeals process to a 2 year max.

I believe not only in the death penalty but think we should televise ALL executions and use less humane forms to dispatch the guilty. Also, limit the appeals process to a 2 year max.

And what do you think will be achieved by this?

Reducing punishments because the judicial system has a record of failure is failing to address the real issue. Improve the judicial system.

As soon as you suggest a method of improving the judicial system to the point where 100% of convictions are safe, I'll listen. Until then, you're going to have to accept that your desire for revenge will see innocent people dying.

I am astounded that the death penalty is still legal in any "civilized" nation on the planet.

It is ludicrous.


now, I realize that not ALL criminals should be put to death, but there are some that are too dangerous for prision society and society in general. People who commit capital offenses such as murder 1, serial murder, and a few others deserve the death penalty.

And what do you think will be achieved by this?
Saw V.

I believe not only in the death penalty but think we should televise ALL executions and use less humane forms to dispatch the guilty. Also, limit the appeals process to a 2 year max.

i may be for Capital punishment, but dont you think that's taking it a bit far? CP is fine where it is. It does not need to be "less humane" and appeals process if fine where it is too. Although this [ :( :sniper: ] might be an interesting form of capital punishment

Iffy Topic but...

Executions should be illegal. Having said this throwing people into prisons never seems to be very beneficial. We should possible segregate them according to a level of 'badness' (couldn't think of anything better), petty theft to 1st degree murder. Then re-educate them in a seperate society, which is the same as 'outside' society. Bit confusing but yeah.

For. I think that the punishment should fit the crime, you kill someone, we kill you. I have no argument about the "the government shouldn't limit human rights", except for this: what does a murderer do? He limits other people's rights. Severely. Plus, executing a few people is a good deterrent and would free up some space in our prisons, which are currently full to bursting.

But, this does bring up an issue about the state of our prisons, especially regarding the case of this one 16-year old kid who murdered some girl in my home town. He was sent up to the state penitentiary for life in prison, but, they decided that he would continue his education there, an education he shouldn't have any right to. (I was going to find some legal evidence for that statement, but apparently, in the US, conviction of a felony doesn't remove most of your rights or your citizenship, as is popular belief. BUT: Slave labor is a suitable punishment for a felony, and is a perfectly legal punishment. Amendment XIII to the Constitution of the United States of America (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html))

Bottom line, everyone has their own opinions, and I doubt a debate in an online forum is going to change much or have much legal weight.

Everyone gets what they deserve eventually.
Justice is about harmony and balance not revenge and feeling good or even closure.

Just like Lewis Prothero says in V for Vendetta:
"No one escapes thier past,No one escapes judgement!"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pzKqeG-KTEU
Thanks to Karma, that is. Not god, god is false.

Everyone gets what they deserve eventually.
Justice is about harmony and balance not revenge and feeling good or even closure.

Just like Lewis Prothero says in V for Vendetta:
"No one escapes judgement!"

Thanks to Karma, that is.

"My name is Earl
Is on TBS
Fana fana fo marma
Karma!"
:D

now, I realize that not ALL criminals should be put to death, but there are some that are too dangerous for prision society and society in general. People who commit capital offenses such as murder 1, serial murder, and a few others deserve the death penalty.

Why?

America's government is so debauched I wouldn't dream about putting the decision of life or death in their hands. They are already murdering thousands in the east, why must it be done in the homeland?

You all are assuming that it is the Goverment that hands out the sentance. They are just the ones that carry it out, the person has had a fair trial of their peers and the peers are the ones that handed out the sentance.

It's just been reported that the US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has rejected a constitutional challenge to lethal injection. The majority decision was written by Chief Justice Roberts.

Link will follow when available.

You all are assuming that it is the Goverment that hands out the sentance. They are just the ones that carry it out, the person has had a fair trial of their peers and the peers are the ones that handed out the sentance.

No ones assuming its the government that hands out the sentence.


I have to say, I laughed my ass off when you said that a trail by jury "of your peers" is inherantly a fair trial.

@New Mitanni:
Being against the death penalty isn't even close to thinking Pol Pot and some street thug deserve the same punishment.

If you impose life imprisonment on each, that is exactly what you are doing. If you enact a law specifying that each is eligible for, at most, life imprisonment, that is exactly what you are doing.

You all are assuming that it is the Goverment that hands out the sentance. They are just the ones that carry it out, the person has had a fair trial of their peers and the peers are the ones that handed out the sentance.

Actually in the U.S. the sentence is handed out by the judge, not by the jury.

So tell me: in all your life, I take it you have never seen a man released from prison after serving a sentence that it's finally accepted they didn't commit?

Never seen people released because it becomes clear that the police lied; the 'expert witnesses' were talking out of their backsides; evidence emerges that the prisoner couldn't possibly have been there at the time the crime was committed?

All you are doing is justifying the appeals process. Which works quite well.

And many of those appeals result in a finding of "not guilty," not "innocent." Some problem with the police search and seizure, or some defective jury instruction, or some other technicality.

These things are far too common, and far from being the 'acceptable risk' that you would have us believe. It doesn't matter if you send 1,000 brutal murderers to their death; the instant you send 1 innocent man, the penalty becomes completely unjust.

No, the penalty becomes unjust as applied to that particular individual.

By your logic, any time any innocent man is sent to prison. the law prescribing the penalty imposed on him "becomes completely unjust." Which is utter nonsense, of course.

Sorry, but the reason you perceive that is because there is a high ground here, and you're at the bottom of it; you place a desire for revenge and blood lust above doing the morally right thing.

Well, you just keep on thinking like that, Mr. Superior. It doesn't make it so no matter how much you really, really think it does.

No ones assuming its the government that hands out the sentence.

There are tons of post in here that say the goverment should not have that power.


I have to say, I laughed my ass off when you said that a trail by jury "of your peers" is inherantly a fair trial.


I don't see what is so funny , it seemed fair enough when the founding fathers set it up.

You all are assuming that it is the Goverment that hands out the sentance. They are just the ones that carry it out, the person has had a fair trial of their peers and the peers are the ones that handed out the sentance.

The government is making the laws, and in the laws it says which punishment is appropriate for which crime.
Also: judicial and executive powers are just as much part of the government as the legislative. We just like to separate them as a measure against absolutism. And I reckon, without that separation, the US and many other nations would look a lot more awful than they do anyways.

Being that the cost is high (innosent lives) as well as a monitary cost. And it is non effective (and some studies say it has the opposite effect) I have to go with a no from both a moral and a pracical standpoint

1.The "society" isn't that "abstract" after all. The "society" is a set of individuals - which of course aren't abstract - plus rules and purpose.

But the criminal didn't commit the crime against every individual, just a selection. There is simply nothing to return to non-victims, because there was nothing taken from them in the first place. Only by making up an abstract person of 'society' that can be aggressed against can you change what is a violation of the property rights of one individual with a violation of the 'rights' of an imaginary construct.

2.I strongly reject the "debt" concept. Let's say an innocent man serves 5 years in jail for robbery because of a judiciary error.With the "debt" concept, he would be in credit of a five-years-worth crime. So he'd be justified to go out there and rob. This is because of the reciprocity you should have in justice and debts/credits.

No, he would not be justified in going out there and robbing, since we have a prohibition against aggression. Instead, he would have a justification in seeking restitution from the judiciary for their aggression against his property rights.

The point is, it is ethically wrong to rob (because it is antisocial):

There are plenty of things that are anti-social that we do not or should not punish with force; rudeness would be one. It is wrong to rob not because it is anti-social but because we need to maintain norms of property in order to avoid conflicts over scarce objects.

hence you must not rob, plain and simple (Kant's cathegorical imperative iirc).

You shouldn't be rude, either, but that doesn't mean we should throw you in jail.

This is why the "punishment" for a crime should be aimed at rehabilitation and, until rehabilitation has been completed (can be, of course, never), the State should protect the society (and the individuals which society is made of) by isolating the criminal from society itself (that is, imprisonment).

No. While rehabilitation may be a plus to a system of punishment, it should not be the main focus. It is quite simply unfair that people's property should be taken from them to support the rehabilitation of a criminal after he has committed a crime of violating property rights. Rather, there should be a network of reciprocal obligations to ensure that the criminal provides restitution for his property rights violation so that each is rendered their due, however it might be chosen.

I think that his thought about Kosovo was that, more or less. A little joke on you, my friend. ;)

Anyway, about the weakness of Europe:

source: CIA factbook.

population:
4 European Union 491,018,677 July 2008 est.
5 United States 303,824,646 July 2008 est.

life expectancy:
42 European Union 78.51 2008 est.
47 United States 78.14 2008 est.

GDP, purchasing power parity
2 European Union $ 14,450,000,000,000 2007 est.
3 United States $ 13,860,000,000,000 2007 est.

real growth rate
163 European Union 3.00 2007 est.
183 United States 2.20 2007 est.

labour force
4 European Union 222,400,000 2006 est.
5 United States 153,100,000 2007 est.

industrial production growth
125 European Union 2.60 2006 est.
168 United States 0.50 2007 est.

current account balance (no EU entry, just giving the bottom of the list)
154 Portugal $ -18,530,000,000 2007 est.
155 South Africa $ -20,060,000,000 2007 est.
156 Romania $ -22,600,000,000 2007
157 France $ -35,940,000,000 2007 est.
158 Turkey $ -36,270,000,000 2007 est.
159 Greece $ -36,400,000,000 2007 est.
160 Australia $ -50,960,000,000 2007 est.
161 Italy $ -57,940,000,000 2007 est.
162 United Kingdom $ -111,000,000,000 2007 est.
163 Spain $ -126,300,000,000 2007 est.
164 United States $ -747,100,000,000 2007 est.

internet hosts
1 European Union 50,500,000 NA
15 United States 3,950,000 2007

EUR/USD rate, last 5 years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=EUR&to=USD&amt=1&t=5y


Clearly, having the death penalty doesn't make a country "stronger".

The European Union is not a country.

It's just been reported that the US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has rejected a constitutional challenge to lethal injection. The majority decision was written by Chief Justice Roberts.

Link will follow when available.

Good!

The death penalty should be legalised in the United Kingdom.

Prisons have become over crowded and the general public have to pay more and more each year to pay for the criminals to live in jail, and the figure of criminals is raising much faster as immigration in England is increasing.

The death penalty would not only scare people into not committing certain crimes but it can also reduce the amount spent on keeping criminals alive.

However, I vote for a use before death.

Where the criminal; who receives the death penalty is used as a laboratory rat, and have cosmetics, medicines etc tested on them rather than animals.

That not only saves animals but it puts criminals to use. Then when they have been made use of, they can be killed by injection.

There is only one downside to such a law. Of course Justice is not always right, and the wrong people can be sentanced when they are innocent. So of course this may cause problems - However, with the money saved from keeping criminals alive, more money can be spent on policing.

The death penalty should be legalised in the United Kingdom.

Prisons have become over crowded and the general public have to pay more and more each year to pay for the criminals to live in jail, and the figure of criminals is raising much faster as immigration in England is increasing.

The death penalty would not only scare people into not committing certain crimes but it can also reduce the amount spent on keeping criminals alive.

However, I vote for a use before death.

Where the criminal; who receives the death penalty is used as a laboratory rat, and have cosmetics, medicines etc tested on them rather than animals.

That not only saves animals but it puts criminals to use. Then when they have been made use of, they can be killed by injection.

There is only one downside to such a law. Of course Justice is not always right, and the wrong people can be sentanced when they are innocent. So of course this may cause problems - However, with the money saved from keeping criminals alive, more money can be spent on policing.
By all means, try. It'll last about as long as its case in the High Court.

If you impose life imprisonment on each, that is exactly what you are doing. If you enact a law specifying that each is eligible for, at most, life imprisonment, that is exactly what you are doing.

And I suppose that with the Death Penalty, Pol Pot is somehow deader than the murderer of one. Your argument is flawed in that there is a limit to the sentance either way.

If people that argue against the death penalty somehow equal Pol Pot to a murderer of one, those who argue for the Death Penalty are doing exactly the same.

The European Union is not a country.

Neither is Europe and yet you're the one who harped on about how the USA is somehow better that Europe.

The odds of frying an innocent man are too low to warrant letting killers escape with their lives. It is an acceptable risk.
Not at all. After all, the killers will still be punished even if you don't use the death penalty.

Reducing punishments because the judicial system has a record of failure is failing to address the real issue. Improve the judicial system.
And how would you go about improving this inherently flawed human system?

The European Union is not a country.


1. It might as well be. Theyre about this I I close from being one.
2. You are the one who said "Europe was weak" as if they all counted as one. Then, when you're shown that you were incorrec, you say "but...but...Europe is not its own country!" If we compared the EU to North America, the results would only get worse.

I am a newbi and i am on the World Assembly and i think that if you do something bad enought to get the death penitally you DESERVE it.

Thank you for your time

I am a newbi and i am on the World Assembly and i think that if you do something bad enought to get the death penitally you DESERVE it.

Thank you for your time

I want it back.

I want it back.Nope. Wasted already, never to return. :)

And I suppose that with the Death Penalty, Pol Pot is somehow deader than the murderer of one. Your argument is flawed in that there is a limit to the sentance either way.

If people that argue against the death penalty somehow equal Pol Pot to a murderer of one, those who argue for the Death Penalty are doing exactly the same.

Not hardly.

Capital punishment fits capital crimes. Practically speaking, it can only be administered once. It doesn't matter if Pol Pot is "deader than the murderer of one." It only matters that his capital crime is punished as a capital crime. Although I would gladly have PP shot, buried, dug up and shot again if it would have any additional effect.

Concurrent sentences for other crimes are handed down all the time. So consider capital punishment for multiple murders, genocide, etc. to be concurrent sentences of death.

There are degrees of guilt with all crimes, homicide included. Not all killings rise to the level of capital crimes. Many do. Those that do must receive capital punishment.

Human life has high value, but not infinitely high value. It can be forfeited by sufficiently evil acts. That is what the anti-death penalty side refuses to recognize.

I am a newbi and i am on the World Assembly and i think that if you do something bad enought to get the death penitally you DESERVE it.

Thank you for your time

You have summed up the argument nicely :D

Capital punishment fits capital crimes.

What an utterly worthless definition.

What an utterly worthless definition.

That a definition is circular doesn't rob it of value, Neo Art.

A student once asked me what a lattice is, and I explained that it is a thing which exhibits lattice properties.

He did very well on the exam.

I haven't read all the pages so sorry if I'm repeating anyone or anything.

It is morally wrong to have the death penalty. You can't say someone deserves it for any reason because to sentence someone to death, you are effectively committing murder. To kill another human being, no matter in what way, is murder, no two ways about it.
It is also utterly against human rights of equality. It is morally incorrect to say that one person can decide on the life or death of another. It is an example of the ruling classes putting themselves into positions where they think they can act as a god. I'm sorry but I do not feel that I have the right to decide on someone else's life and no-one has the right to do the same to me. I don't care what title you have before your name.
Also, it is nothing more than revenge on the person condemned. Humans are sickeningly guilty of revenge which is one of the reasons why the world is not getting better.
It can be seen as an easy way out for the person sentenced to death, too. If you kill them, they don't have to pay for their actions in any way. Life imprisonment is a fucking hard thing to go through and they should instead have to serve their debt to society in this way (although the prison system is shockingly flawed but that's another argument).

See, the problem is that you're talking retribution for a crime (which can become vendetta), while I, as anti-death-penalty, talk about efficiency in protecting the society and ethical behaviour of the State.

The administration of justice has an essential retributive component. It is not merely a matter of social protection or the promotion of ethical behavior. It makes the statement, "This crime is wrong, and those who choose to commit will suffer the consequences of their choice. Don't do it or you will suffer the same consequences."

As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the world blind".

If it were truly "an eye for an eye," each capital criminal would be executed in the same manner he dispatched his victim(s).

If the State says "I will kill those who killed", then the State becomes a killer himself - while, of course, refusing to apply its own laws to himself. This is ethically wrong. If a State has no better ethical standards than those of a criminal, then that State needs huge reforms immediately.

What the State actually says in that situation is, "I will execute those who commit murder." The two acts are not morally equivalent.


People don't warrant "different penalties". Their actions maybe.

You're splitting hairs. The meaning of my statement was clear.

What is the purpose of law anyway? Not to exact vendetta. Its purpose is to keep society working, and to protect the "weak" ones.

No, its purpose is to ensure justice for all. It is that provision of justice that "keeps society working."

Now I'll try a counterexample based on your theory. Let's say you have a criminal who kills 3 people. Let's say you give him death penalty. Then, what do you give to someone who's killed 6? Kill him twice? Less pain for the three-times homicide than for the six-times homicide?
You'll have a maximum level of punishment anyway (let's say the most painful and gruesome you can think of).

See my preceding post. The appropriate analogy is concurrent sentencing.

Is this going to deter those who already have reached the criminal level that awards the maximum penalty? NO. Is this going to bring the killed ones back? NEITHER.

It may or may not have a deterrent effect. IMO that is a secondary consideration. The primary consideration is imposition of punishment that fits the crime.

Is this going to allow State-sponsored vendetta and sadism? YES.

No, what it actually does is inhibit private vendettas by reducing or eliminating the motivation for such.

Is this an example of your claimed "moral superiority"? Well... maybe you should think a bit about this.

I've thought about it plenty.

Take the worst criminal you can imagine. Has the State (any reasonabily well-functioning State) the means to keep him isolated from society, so to prevent any further harm, without killing him? I think it has.

Irrelevant to the issue of imposition of punishment that fits the crime.

Also, death penalty is totally inefficient. Italy, an abolitionist State with that small problem called mafia, has seen in the last 15 years the number of homicides drop from about 1500/year (early '90s) to current about 350/year. The USA, a State with death penalty, is the G8 State with the highest homicide/population ratio. Think about it: death penalty doesn't work.

That's just another way of talking about deterrence. Again, deterrence is a secondary consideration.

Maybe I'm morally inferior for not supporting State-sponsored homicide, but someone who talks without thinking about the consequences of his ideas is intellectually inferior, methinks.

You really don't want to go there.

What an utterly worthless definition.

No, a definition would be, e.g., "Capital punishment: deprivation of life, imposed on one guilty of serious crime."

A recursive, and thus arguably worthless, definition would be, e.g., "Capital punishment: punishment for capital crimes."

"Capital crimes" can likewise be defined recursively, e.g., "Capital crime: a crime for which capital punishment is imposed." Better would be something like, "Capital crime: a crime determined by a society to warrant capital punishment, such as premeditated murder."

What I said is that capital punishment fits capital crimes. Or: the punishment that is in fact imposed on capital crimes is appropriate to such crimes.

So what's actually "utterly worthless" is your comment.

I am a newbi and i am on the World Assembly and i think that if you do something bad enought to get the death penitally you DESERVE it.

Thank you for your time

Distrust those in who the impulse to punish is powerful.

~Nietzsche

Distrust those in who the impulse to punish is powerful.

~Nietzsche

Agreed.

I would like this addressed.


Europe does not have a death penalty.

European countries have less violent crime.

Studies show time and time again that it is not a effective deterrent.

China, who impliment the death penalty how are sociopathic friends here would like it to be implimented, has high crime rates as well.

One can easily conclude then that it doesnt work. If its broke, fucking fix it.

I would like this addressed.


Europe does not have a death penalty.

European countries have less violent crime.

Studies show time and time again that it is not a effective deterrent.

China, who impliment the death penalty how are sociopathic friends here would like it to be implimented, has high crime rates as well.

One can easily conclude then that it doesnt work. If its broke, fucking fix it.


China also has massive poverty, despite having a large and growing middle class population. It is also industrializing.

Correlation does not equal causation. (heh, I hate the phrase, but it applies here)
You are jumping to conclusions about the death penalty.

It is more expensive than even life without parole. It is less than a deterrent than life without parole. From a rational standpoint, it is therefore completely useless.

Explain how a judicial process that would be followed irrespective of the existence or otherwise of capital punishment, and something along the lines of a gallows or fuck off big axe is more expensive than life imprisonment.

The death penalty is needed in order for social order to be maintained. If one steps out of line, they therefore need to be eliminated before they cause a "revolution" that threatens one's power. Also, the cost of executing someone is much less than keeping someone in prison for life.

The death penalty is needed in order for social order to be maintained. If one steps out of line, they therefore need to be eliminated before they cause a "revolution" that threatens one's power. Also, the cost of executing someone is much less than keeping someone in prison for life.

Why should social order be maintained as it is? Why should those who dissent be murdered?

And finally, the last point is a flat out lie. The total cost of capital punishment per execution is greater than the total cost of keeping some one in prison for life. But this does not matter, because proper justice cannot be bought.

The most important question that is never answered is this: what gives the state the right to abridge the laws that it gives to its denizens, and commit murder?

Why should social order be maintained as it is? Why should those who dissent be murdered?

And finally, the last point is a flat out lie. The total cost of capital punishment per execution is greater than the total cost of keeping some one in prison for life. But this does not matter, because proper justice cannot be bought.

The most important question that is never answered is this: what gives the state the right to abridge the laws that it gives to its denizens, and commit murder?

It might be different in China.

The government should be able to execute criminals because the citizens allow them to?

It might be different in China.

The government should be able to execute criminals because the citizens allow them to?

But then the citizens by extension become the murders. In the words of Voltaire, "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

But then the citizens by extension become the murders. In the words of Voltaire, "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

I guess one could argue that.

Though a murder and an execution are not the same thing.

One thing I've noticed is that right wing semi fascists whose support of capital punishment approaches masturbatorial fantasies yell and scream "SOCIAL RELATIVISM!" when questioned why the vast majority of nations that don't have the death penalty have crime rates lower than our own. That it's ok to have the death penalty because our society is "different" than european societies and we need the death penalty from keeping our society from falling apart, and just because Europe manages to keep a lower crime rate than our own without murdering people, we're apparently not that sophisticated.

The ironic thing about this whole thing is that it's these same people who support invasion of other countries because they disagree with their policies. I guess cultural relativism is a sufficient reason to justify our own barbaric policies, but not enough to support others.

Oh well, the modern concservative movement as we know it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the human capacity to maintain contradictory positions.

Though a murder and an execution are not the same thing.

Other than the legality, what makes them different? After all, what is legal and what is not is entirely a subjective thing, and the mere fact that something is legal should not be used as a moral justification.

I haven't read the whole thread yet because it's late, but I just wanted to get in by declaring that, having formerly been neutral on the death penalty (meaning I didn't care if the US had it or not), I am now very strongly against the death penalty. I changed my mind because I had a good 20 years of life in which to see US states applying the death penalty vindictively -- not motivated by justice, but by politics or emotion or prejudice, and an attitude that someone must be punished, whether it's the right person or not, and with precious little regard for making sure the convicted person is actually guilty before killing them.

Having watched the way states use the death penalty in the US, I have decided that it is a barbaric practice that lets the state use life and death as tools of official power. It also promotes a revenge culture that, over time, corrupts the principles of the people who live in it. I don't care about murderers and other dangerous criminals. I care about the bad effect I believe the death penalty has on the rest of society.

Other than the legality, what makes them different? After all, what is legal and what is not is entirely a subjective thing, and the mere fact that something is legal should not be used as a moral justification.

Murder is killing for no reason, or petty reasons.

Execution is the ultimate punishment for criminals, and removes a threat from society once and for all.

Good!

Here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351527,00.html

You know what funny thing just sprang to mind?


If I go into a prison, and shoot someone who has been sentenced to death, I still will be convicted of murder :D and probably sentenced to death for it.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Studies have been inconclusive for both for and against deterrent. More importantly the death penalty provides equal retribution for the crime. The moral defense of the death penalty is the principle of justice. In the case of premeditated murder, capital punishment is the only just punishment: it is the only punishment roughly proportionate to the harm that has been done to the murder victim. The idea that the crime committed should be roughly equal to the punishment is logical and constructive for society. If the punishment is more severe than the crime, it would be considered revenge. Or the direct opposite, a punishment that is less severe than the crime would be considered leniency. The concept of retribution, an equal sentence to the crime committed, should be the standard of society. It is the only punishment that is fair to the lives of the innocent and condemned. Bidinotto states:
"If we undermine or abandon proportionality, how do we then gauge whether to punish someone for a crime, and how much? Why not a hundred lashes of the whip for stealing a loaf of bread—but a mere $5 fine for rape? We are stuck in a trap of arbitrary punishments, of different punishments for the same crime, of punishing someone either too much or too little—and of having our entire legal system lose public credibility and respect, on the grounds that it is inherently unfair and unjust"

Studies have been inconclusive for both for and against deterrent.

I personally do not consider death much of a punishment or deterrent. Death ends my existence. Gee, big deal - it is not like I would experience the fact that I no longer exist.
Being in jail for the rest of my life to me is a far graver threat because I would still be around. There would still be a "me" being deprived of freedom, while there would be no "me" if I get executed.

So.. why do other people fear it so or consider it the ultimate punishment ?

Studies have been inconclusive for both for and against deterrent. More importantly the death penalty provides equal retribution for the crime. The moral defense of the death penalty is the principle of justice. In the case of premeditated murder, capital punishment is the only just punishment: it is the only punishment roughly proportionate to the harm that has been done to the murder victim. The idea that the crime committed should be roughly equal to the punishment is logical and constructive for society. If the punishment is more severe than the crime, it would be considered revenge. Or the direct opposite, a punishment that is less severe than the crime would be considered leniency. The concept of retribution, an equal sentence to the crime committed, should be the standard of society. It is the only punishment that is fair to the lives of the innocent and condemned. Bidinotto states:
"If we undermine or abandon proportionality, how do we then gauge whether to punish someone for a crime, and how much? Why not a hundred lashes of the whip for stealing a loaf of bread—but a mere $5 fine for rape? We are stuck in a trap of arbitrary punishments, of different punishments for the same crime, of punishing someone either too much or too little—and of having our entire legal system lose public credibility and respect, on the grounds that it is inherently unfair and unjust"

No, you see. That is the reason why we don't 'Punish'.
We exclude from our mid until the offender can be trusted as following the rules of society again. Not as punishment, as security measure for those who who do adhere to societies rules.
If a human being doesn't come to the conclusion that the way society is working is right and needs to be cherished and honored, the no amount of 'punishment' will make him see that. You are not creating justice, you are creating a criminals who will be more cautious about being caught... and that's all.

No, you see. That is the reason why we don't 'Punish'.
We exclude from our mid until the offender can be trusted as following the rules of society again. Not as punishment, as security measure for those who who do adhere to societies rules.
If a human being doesn't come to the conclusion that the way society is working is right and needs to be cherished and honored, the no amount of 'punishment' will make him see that. You are not creating justice, you are creating a criminals who will be more cautious about being caught... and that's all.

And your no punishment system creates a system where criminals have no fear, no deterrent at all.

And your no punishment system creates a system where criminals have no fear, no deterrent at all.
Except of course the fear and deterrent of not being part of the society anymore.
Back in the days when there was still uninhabitated land on earth, this was called banishment, and it was the only true sentencing the people knew.
On the other hand, those desperate enough to commit crimes can be sure not to be judged by an eye for an eye, and will be more free to admit and repent instead of escalating in crime and violence to cover up their previous faults out of fear of punishment.

Except of course the fear and deterrent of not being part of the society anymore.
Back in the days when there was still uninhabitated land on earth, this was called banishment, and it was the only true sentencing the people knew.
On the other hand, those desperate enough to commit crimes can be sure not to be judged by an eye for an eye, and will be more free to admit and repent instead of escalating in crime and violence to cover up their previous faults out of fear of punishment.

Or to lie and do it all over again, because they know they'll only get a slap on the wrist.

Criminals need the rod to scare them into behaving. Not a slap on the wrist with a velvet glove.

edit: And there are plenty of ex-cons who go straight because the don't want to go back to jail. Why? Because jail sucks.

Or to lie and do it all over again, because they know they'll only get a slap on the wrist.

Criminals need the rod to scare them into behaving. Not a slap on the wrist with a velvet glove.

edit: And there are plenty of ex-cons who go straight because the don't want to go back to jail. Why? Because jail sucks.

You don't seem to get my point.
I am not against prisons, or putting people in them.
It's the intent with which we do it today which is wrong.
We both want to archive that the the criminals do stop being criminals, right?
You say a certain crime should have a certain punishment, the heavier the crime, the heavier the punishment, then the criminals are released again, and those who are now too scared of being caught don't do it anymore, and those wo aren't too scared (the majority) keeps going... getting worse and more careful.
Those who did too heavy crimes, should get killed.

I say, largely unrelated to the heaviness of crime, we shall limit the rights and freedoms of the criminal in accordance to make it impossible for him to repeat this disrespect toward societies laws. This is most often the freedom of movement, possession, privacy.
My point is, that the goal should however not be to 'guess' how much 'punishment' a person needs to be too scared of the system, but to actively seek the dialog, educate them and support them in their attempt to fit back into society permanently. To minimize the quota of those who need repeat their offenses.
They shall not receive their freedom/right back until they are ready for it. And that can mean never.

And your no punishment system creates a system where criminals have no fear, no deterrent at all.

I object the efficiency of deterrence against criminals. "Professional" criminals - that is, those who chose crime as primary source of income - always think at least one of these:
1."Why should I abide the law? I'm smart and I'll never get caught!"
2."I have no other choice than breaking the law".

You can't deter someone who thinks like that.

I object the efficiency of deterrence against criminals. "Professional" criminals - that is, those who chose crime as primary source of income - always think at least one of these:
1."Why should I abide the law? I'm smart and I'll never get caught!"
2."I have no other choice than breaking the law".

You can't deter someone who thinks like that.

Then make prison such a hell hole they don't want to come back, keep them there for the rest of their lives, or kill them if they commit a bad enough crime.

The administration of justice has an essential retributive component. It is not merely a matter of social protection or the promotion of ethical behavior. It makes the statement, "This crime is wrong, and those who choose to commit will suffer the consequences of their choice. Don't do it or you will suffer the same consequences."
Yes. That's why I object to the current idea of administration of justice. My idea is: "you've done something against the society. You will be taught to act differently, and, until you've learned, you won't be allowed into society. If you'll never learn, you'll never be allowed."


If it were truly "an eye for an eye," each capital criminal would be executed in the same manner he dispatched his victim(s).
What the State actually says in that situation is, "I will execute those who commit murder." The two acts are not morally equivalent.

I think that they are morally equivalent. In both cases, you have a man that's unable to defend himself, who's unable to do further harm. To kill him is a totally unjustified homicide.
After all, the essence of criminal homicide and State-run homicide is the same: killing a man.

You're splitting hairs. The meaning of my statement was clear.
I like splitting hairs. Expecially since I'm losing some of mine... ;)

No, its purpose is to ensure justice for all. It is that provision of justice that "keeps society working."
Justice - in the strict meaning of retribution for antisocial acts - isn't enough. Retributive justice has proven inefficient in eliminating crime.

No, what it actually does is inhibit private vendettas by reducing or eliminating the motivation for such.
Back to early Roman jurisdiction, aren't we? Victim of crimes, or their heirs, calling on the State for vendetta.

Then make prison such a hell hole they don't want to come back, keep them there for the rest of their lives, or kill them if they commit a bad enough crime.

In both cases (life imprisonment and death sentence), what's the point of making prison such a hell hole the criminals don't want to come back? Anyway they aren't going to be out of prison anymore.

In both cases (life imprisonment and death sentence), what's the point of making prison such a hell hole the criminals don't want to come back? Anyway they aren't going to be out of prison anymore.

To punish them for their crimes.

But the criminal didn't commit the crime against every individual, just a selection. There is simply nothing to return to non-victims, because there was nothing taken from them in the first place. Only by making up an abstract person of 'society' that can be aggressed against can you change what is a violation of the property rights of one individual with a violation of the 'rights' of an imaginary construct.

No. A crime against an individual is an act against the society: because the purpose of society is to ensure good life conditions for all individuals therein.


No, he would not be justified in going out there and robbing, since we have a prohibition against aggression. Instead, he would have a justification in seeking restitution from the judiciary for their aggression against his property rights.
You might say, instead of "not justified", "not allowed"; but that's a different thing. Not all prohibitions are just - prohibition and justice are two different things. If there's no reciprocity, there is no
By rehabilitative justice, you achive a different system:
1.innocent man gets unjustly sentenced
2.he is rehabilitated... (but, since he didn't need rehabilitation from the beginning, it really needs no time ;) )
3.if his innocence is eventually recognised, then the judiciary system that sentenced him must undergo rehabilitation - that is, control, re-evalutation, reform.
Reciprocity and rehabilitation instead of retribution and no reciprocity.

There are plenty of things that are anti-social that we do not or should not punish with force; rudeness would be one. It is wrong to rob not because it is anti-social but because we need to maintain norms of property in order to avoid conflicts over scarce objects.
1.I'm not talking about punishing. Rudeness should be avoided, though. You achieve that by education and, eventually, by exclusion - a rude person would not be allowed into some parts of society, usually.
2.And why do we need to maintain norms of property? Because society wouldn't work with conflicts over scarce objects.


No. While rehabilitation may be a plus to a system of punishment, it should not be the main focus. It is quite simply unfair that people's property should be taken from them to support the rehabilitation of a criminal after he has committed a crime of violating property rights.
I prefer to call it an investment. Also, I never said that an inmate doesn't have to work.

Rather, there should be a network of reciprocal obligations to ensure that the criminal provides restitution for his property rights violation so that each is rendered their due, however it might be chosen.
Not all crimes are about property of material goods. Generally, the worst crimes don't involve material goods (homicide).

To punish them for their crimes.

Here we go with vendetta again.

Here we go with vendetta again.

We just can't get around it, can we?

China has a turn around rate of about a week, so the death penalty doesn't always have to waste a lot resources. Hell, I bet they don't even feed them during that week.

China even bills the family of the executed for the cost of the execution itself

Murder is killing for no reason, or petty reasons.

Execution is the ultimate punishment for criminals, and removes a threat from society once and for all.

To assume that the death penalty punishes is not using reason, to assume that those who are killed in this way will always be a threat(I.E. that rehabilitation is not possible) is not using reason.

So all in all what you say here about the death penalty is reasonless, or killing without reason, or as you put it murder.

i am for it not in the case of revenge, but to insure that the prisoner that's being executed never does what he/she did ever again. i've heard of too many "scumbags" getting out of prison on some technicality and then proceeding to do again what they were put in there for in the 1st place, maybe worse.

i am for it not in the case of revenge, but to insure that the prisoner that's being executed never does what he/she did ever again. i've heard of too many "scumbags" getting out of prison on some technicality and then proceeding to do again what they were put in there for in the 1st place, maybe worse.

So we should also execute those who harm people in RTA's?

Can you not perhaps imagine any other ways to stop a criminal from going back into crime? Are all people alike, do all criminals think alike, are none capable of rehabilitation?

The problem with using the same methoed for all, is that it don't work, you strip out the good with the bad, like dredgeing the sea floor instead of line cathing and concentrating on the exact species you want.

People who murder other people elect at the same time to lose their own lives, it is only fair.

I think the death penalty should be administered in the form of a huge overdose of opiate drugs or barbiturates or something along those lines, so as not to inflict unnecessary suffering.

People who murder other people elect at the same time to lose their own lives, it is only fair.

I think the death penalty should be administered in the form of a huge overdose of opiate drugs or barbiturates or something along those lines, so as not to inflict unnecessary suffering.

Bwahaha how have they done that? So if the state elects to kill somebody they too have choosen to be killed?

its not that there aren't maybe sometimes people who 'need killing',
though i say maybe, because even that how or even who, are any
of us to ever know. but the problem is, there is no way any system
of jurisprudence can ever be infallable.

as long as criminality can only be judged by what other people think
someone did, or even what some one for some reason of their own
WANT them to think someone did, rather then what they themselves know themselves to have done or not done, there is no way to guarantee the fairness of any judgement. its almost like haning someones life in the balance of 13 people playing roulette. its probably it bit more accurate then
completely random chance, but not nearly as much more as most
people find it comforting to imagine.

so to put anyones life, intentionally, in the hands of so unreliable a
proccess, can that ever be sane or reasonable? i think not.

=^^=
.../\...

Bwahaha how have they done that? So if the state elects to kill somebody they too have choosen to be killed?

If it murders someone, the people responsible should be brought to justice in keeping with their wishes, expressed through their actions, regarding how to treat people.

We just can't get around it, can we?

We cannot evade our instincts. We must act as they ask, or we must fight them back.

No. A crime against an individual is an act against the society: because the purpose of society is to ensure good life conditions for all individuals therein.

In the case of an aggression, the property rights of non-victims have not been violated, only the victims who has had some physical object that they own controlled against their will. No one else's property has been violated, and as they do not own the victim's property themselves they have no say in what restitution the victim seeks for the redress of his property.

You might say, instead of "not justified", "not allowed"; but that's a different thing. Not all prohibitions are just - prohibition and justice are two different things. If there's no reciprocity, there is no

Oh, I wasn't insinuating that it is not justified because there is a prohibition against it; there are plenty of things that are prohibited that should be legal (punishing people for drug use) and plenty of things that are allowed that should be prohibited (conscription, including jury duty.) Being that the judiciary, in this case, would be the aggressor, they are the ones that owe restitution to the victim for violating his property rights.

By rehabilitative justice, you achive a different system:
1.innocent man gets unjustly sentenced
2.he is rehabilitated... (but, since he didn't need rehabilitation from the beginning, it really needs no time ;) )
3.if his innocence is eventually recognised, then the judiciary system that sentenced him must undergo rehabilitation - that is, control, re-evalutation, reform.
Reciprocity and rehabilitation instead of retribution and no reciprocity.

And the innocent man would get nothing from this, as his property rights are essentially ignored. Instead of doing all of this control and whatnot, he should simply be given restitution, since he has been aggressed against.

1.I'm not talking about punishing. Rudeness should be avoided, though. You achieve that by education and, eventually, by exclusion - a rude person would not be allowed into some parts of society, usually.

But just because an act is anti-social does not mean it should be legally punished. The basis for any legal punishment should be restitution for property rights violations, not acts against an abstract 'society' (which could conceivably include being rude to someone and bringing down the supposed quality of the abstract collective, thus making a supposed need for rehabiliation for better functioning in 'society'.)

2.And why do we need to maintain norms of property? Because society wouldn't work with conflicts over scarce objects.

I would say that, rather, we need to maintain norms of property to avoid dispute with other individuals for our own good, not to improve the quality of an abstract person of society. Also, a system with a focus on rehabilitation over restitution fails to maintain the norms of property since it focuses on taking resources from some in order to rehabilitate people who have already taken from their victims, thus adding dispute to dispute. Whereas if the focus is upon restitution at an economical basis there is certainty to the protection of one's property claims.

I prefer to call it an investment. Also, I never said that an inmate doesn't have to work.

But the focus of your system is not on restitution but rather drawing from a common pool (i.e. other people's belongings) for rehabilitation, which can cost any amount. Whereas, with restitution one has to place the inmate in the most economical function to offset costs and make enough profit to satisfy the debt the criminal has to their victim(s.)

Not all crimes are about property of material goods. Generally, the worst crimes don't involve material goods (homicide).

One's body is a scarce, material good that one controls, and as such is one's property. An elevated, inalienable property, but one's property nonetheless.

Amnesty International says, "The death penalty not only runs the risk of irrevocable error, it is also costly - to the public purse, as well as in social and psychological terms. It has not been proved to have a special deterrent effect. It tends to be applied discriminatorily on grounds of race and class. It denies the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation. It promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies. It prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family, and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner. It diverts resources that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist those affected by it. It is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. It is an affront to human dignity. It should be abolished."

I am for the death penalty, with qualification. By the death penalty, I understand not specifically state instituted killing, but killing sanctioned by some body which exercises power. (A revolutionary organization could carry out a death sentence, for example.)

The death penalty comes with a VERY high burden of proof. And, generally, the cases of individual citizens will not meet that burden. The crimes of individuals in everyday life are very small compared to the crimes of heads of state. That said, the only time the death penalty could ever be considered is in the case of errant heads of state, whose crimes are very obviously public and irrefutable.

The death penalty makes sense only for crimes against humanity charges.

In the case of an aggression, the property rights of non-victims have not been violated...


I cannot understand why you're focusing on the violation of property rights... expecially in a thread where we're discussing death penalty. Usually death penalty isn't given for crimes against property: it's given (justly or unjustly) for violent crimes against people, or for highly antisocial crimes like high treason.


But just because an act is anti-social does not mean it should be legally punished. The basis for any legal punishment should be restitution for property rights violations


There is an interesting latin writing on the façade of Milan's tribunal.
It reads:
IVRIS PRAECEPTA SVNT HAEC - HONESTE VIVERE - ALTERVM NON LAEDERE - SVVM CVIQVE TRIBVERE
(The principles of right are these: live honestly, do not harm others, give everyone what he is entitled to)

While the third part, suum cuique tribuere, effectively talks about retribution (tribuere) - which includes property rights, the other two talk about ethical imperatives without concepts of retribution: living according to ethical standards (of which not harming others is an important part).

Justice cannot stand on retribution and property alone.


I would say that, rather, we need to maintain norms of property to avoid dispute with other individuals for our own good

It's the same: we need to live in a society for our own good. Humans are social animals. Whatever damages society, harms individuals: whatever harms individuals, is an harm to society. It's a reciprocity principle, required for the existance of the social pact.


But the focus of your system is not on restitution but rather drawing from a common pool (i.e. other people's belongings) for rehabilitation, which can cost any amount.

As I stated before, I do think that inmates should work. And work is highly rehabilitating, too - if done under some conditions: mining uranium in Siberia isn't quite rehabilitating. Anyway, I think that people are more important than material goods, so much more important that the ethical value of rehabilitating (or attempting to) a person outweighs any costs it entails.

I am for the death penalty, with qualification. By the death penalty, I understand not specifically state instituted killing, but killing sanctioned by some body which exercises power. (A revolutionary organization could carry out a death sentence, for example.)
.

I don't think that a death sentence carried out by a revolutionary organisation is a "juridical" death sentence. It is outside the rules of justice: it belongs to the realm of politics.

For instance, I think that killing Mussolini was a justified homicide (to some degree, and anyway having him tried and trown in jail for life would have been better... but the risks were too high). Anyway, although his death was decided in absentia by a tribunal - the laws of the Kingdom of Italy allowed that, and warranted death for high treason - I think that the reasons for his death were political, not juridical. Just as the beheading of Louis XVI.

Amnesty International says, "The death penalty not only runs the risk of irrevocable error, it is also costly - to the public purse, as well as in social and psychological terms. It has not been proved to have a special deterrent effect. It tends to be applied discriminatorily on grounds of race and class. It denies the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation. It promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies. It prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family, and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner. It diverts resources that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist those affected by it. It is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. It is an affront to human dignity. It should be abolished."

I cannot understand why you're focusing on the violation of property rights... expecially in a thread where we're discussing death penalty. Usually death penalty isn't given for crimes against property: it's given (justly or unjustly) for violent crimes against people, or for highly antisocial crimes like high treason.



There is an interesting latin writing on the façade of Milan's tribunal.
It reads:
IVRIS PRAECEPTA SVNT HAEC - HONESTE VIVERE - ALTERVM NON LAEDERE - SVVM CVIQVE TRIBVERE
(The principles of right are these: live honestly, do not harm others, give everyone what he is entitled to)

While the third part, suum cuique tribuere, effectively talks about retribution (tribuere) - which includes property rights, the other two talk about ethical imperatives without concepts of retribution: living according to ethical standards (of which not harming others is an important part).

Justice cannot stand on retribution and property alone.


It's the same: we need to live in a society for our own good. Humans are social animals. Whatever damages society, harms individuals: whatever harms individuals, is an harm to society. It's a reciprocity principle, required for the existance of the social pact.


As I stated before, I do think that inmates should work. And work is highly rehabilitating, too - if done under some conditions: mining uranium in Siberia isn't quite rehabilitating. Anyway, I think that people are more important than material goods, so much more important that the ethical value of rehabilitating (or attempting to) a person outweighs any costs it entails.
Both of the above are quoted in full to emphasize how strongly I agree with them.

The only caveat I would add to anything that Risottia has said is that the killing of Mussolini, though arguably justified, was still a homicide. The state may decide that justification warrants excusing a crime, but it doesn't mean the act was not a crime. Let those who did it feel whatever guilt they may, regardless of whether they will be officially punished for it or not.

A state involved in death penalty should legalize other things related to death. For example the euthanasia with social welfare aid.

The state prohibiting death penalty should write norms on medical services resulting death. It should also make arrangements about food producers and cattering what can result death in consumers with high fat and blood pressure problems. Sugar and salt should prohibited, too.

There is NO justification for the state murdering individuals in the name of "Justice".

it is also costly - to the public purse, as well as in social and psychological terms.

The DP itself is not inherently more costly than any other solution. Only in the US where the idea of an extended time on death row causes this. This is not a neccessary part of the DP.

It has not been proved to have a special deterrent effect.

Deterrence is not the only reason to retain the DP.

It tends to be applied discriminatorily on grounds of race and class
This is a problem with the judicial system (paticularly in the US), not related to the DP per se

It denies the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation.

Some people cannot be rehabilitated, and what they have done is beyond reconcilliation, and to pretend otherwise is to invite further criminality.

It prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family

How?

It diverts resources that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist those affected by it.

If prosecuting and convicting serious, violent criminals isn't working against violent crime then what is?

The death penalty should be abolished. The only use for the death penalty is on murderers. If we kill them, are we any better than them? We have both stolen life from another. What's more, death is not the utmost punishment. A lifetime of solitary confinement would be (in my opinion) much worse. When you die, your suffering is over. If you remain alive for the rest of you life with no human contact.... you have a lifetime to stew over what you've done. Much worse.

The DP itself is not inherently more costly than any other solution. Only in the US where the idea of an extended time on death row causes this. This is not a neccessary part of the DP.



Deterrence is not the only reason to retain the DP.


This is a problem with the judicial system (paticularly in the US), not related to the DP per se



Some people cannot be rehabilitated, and what they have done is beyond reconcilliation, and to pretend otherwise is to invite further criminality.



How?



If prosecuting and convicting serious, violent criminals isn't working against violent crime then what is?

No response for the possibility of irrevocable error?

Jup, the US has the death penalty, it really helps there doesn't it...
Anyway, I'm against it, it simply is a completly retarted idea. 1 Of the mean reasons is that you can't turn it back. Also, the death penalty makes "Justice" just as bad as the murderers, because they're murdering people as well.
It really makes me wonder, why the HELL use the death penalty?

One of the major arguments I used once in a class debate about the death penalty was that the convicted got off relatively easy, they only stayed around for a few years while the victims and relatives of the victims had to live the rest of their lives with this criminals crime.

Now I've come to realise that the years spent on death row is not as simple as just waiting around, the mental stress of knowing that your time is near is a truly horrific way to live out the remaining time.
But then does someone who has committed such crimes deserve such a fate? Is that also part of their punishment? Or is that just too cruel an act to inflict on any human?



My personal opinion is that there should be no death penalty except in extreme cases in which keeping them alive would be much more dangerous then killing them, e.g. a warlord or a dictator who is likely to rise again to power if they escaped.
Murder should carry life, and the murderer should be forced to full fill their sentence in its entirety, but taking their life in exchange for their victims should not be an option.

There is NO justification for the state murdering individuals in the name of "Justice".
Sure there is. For example, heads of state that commit crimes against humanity should be tried for their crimes and executed if convicted...

Looks at Bush...

I cannot understand why you're focusing on the violation of property rights... expecially in a thread where we're discussing death penalty. Usually death penalty isn't given for crimes against property: it's given (justly or unjustly) for violent crimes against people, or for highly antisocial crimes like high treason.

One's body, as a tangible object which one can exert control over, is one's property. Hence why one is indebted to one's victim for invading their body just the same as any other property. Also, high treason is not a crime at all, since it does not involve any physical invasion of another person's rightly owned property. In actual fact, high treason is probably a virtue because of this.

There is an interesting latin writing on the façade of Milan's tribunal.
It reads:
IVRIS PRAECEPTA SVNT HAEC - HONESTE VIVERE - ALTERVM NON LAEDERE - SVVM CVIQVE TRIBVERE
(The principles of right are these: live honestly, do not harm others, give everyone what he is entitled to)

While the third part, suum cuique tribuere, effectively talks about retribution (tribuere) - which includes property rights, the other two talk about ethical imperatives without concepts of retribution: living according to ethical standards (of which not harming others is an important part).

Justice cannot stand on retribution and property alone.

Actually, one can have a system of justice entirely on the notion of private property, since private property entails norms of conduct concerning control of physical objects. Because this would entirely avoid dispute over said tangible objects on the basis of first occupancy, in actual fact the only just system is that based on private property.

It's the same: we need to live in a society for our own good. Humans are social animals. Whatever damages society, harms individuals: whatever harms individuals, is an harm to society. It's a reciprocity principle, required for the existance of the social pact.

But this fails since anything could be conceived to be harmful and thus worthy of punishment if we base our norms on notions of anti-social activity instead of private property. Creating such dispute fogs up what is the notion of justice, of what each is due, and thus is disfunctional to the entire idea of rights. Rather, private property, which sets boundaries clearly, is the best system for interaction.

As I stated before, I do think that inmates should work. And work is highly rehabilitating, too - if done under some conditions: mining uranium in Siberia isn't quite rehabilitating. Anyway, I think that people are more important than material goods, so much more important that the ethical value of rehabilitating (or attempting to) a person outweighs any costs it entails.

I would not argue that work helps rehabilitate prisoners, and this is a fortunate thing indeed. However, placing rehabilitation over retribution is disfunctional as a concept of justice. You yourself say that it "outweighs any costs it entails", and conceivably one could use the entire common pool to go to the greatest lengths to rehabilitate a person. Yet, this would be disfunctional to a system of justice as it would dispute the property of those who are being forced to support these prisoners regardless of whatever benefits there may be. If there are people who want to spend their money to rehabilitate the prisoner, that is alright, but those who do not want to should not have to. Rather, retribution should be the basis for punishment, as it allows for rational economic calculation of weighing costs against benefits, and norms are protected in that the person's property is restored and they may continue as closely as possible to their previous condition as they can.

The DP is a waste. We could use murder convicts for manual labor.

We use it way too little, it takes years for them to be put to death. and it's a waste pf money to put prisoners in prison. that or put them in a reality survival game w/ no winners.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

sends them to purgatory where they belong

:sniper:

I would have chosen 'Against,' but it wasn't an option. /smartass

What about life in solitary? Much more psychologically damaging for the convicted, and if the accused was wrongly convicted, they have a chance of being released at some point. If they've been killed, well. As for money--if the government hates murderers that much, spend as little money as necessary on them.

No response for the possibility of irrevocable error?

Same as before. Focus heavily on having a decent judicial system and do all that can be done to ensure a fair trial and a good appeals procedure. Whilst I wouldn't deny that he execution of an innocent man is a terrible thing, I do believe that the benefits to society as a whole in having a legal system which retains this power, do outweigh that issue. And I say that as someone who in my family ancestry has had family members executed.

Same as before. Focus heavily on having a decent judicial system and do all that can be done to ensure a fair trial and a good appeals procedure. Whilst I wouldn't deny that he execution of an innocent man is a terrible thing, I do believe that the benefits to society as a whole in having a legal system which retains this power, do outweigh that issue. And I say that as someone who in my family ancestry has had family members executed.
What a coincidence. My ethnic heritage is also connected to people who were executed. I'm not sure of a direct connection, but my family shares a last name with Nicola Sacco of the infamous Sacco-Vanzetti case. Those two men were railroaded into death sentences on a very weak case only because of the anti-communist and anti-immigrant political atmosphere of the time. They were executed unfairly, and if there was any "benefit" to society in the killing of these most probably innocent men, it was only in starting the modern discussion about the injustice of the death penalty in the US.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html

You may be happy to sacrifice innocent people, including your own family, on an altar of social order, but I am not willing to subject myself or anyone else to such an arbitrary and tyrannical system.

Same as before. Focus heavily on having a decent judicial system and do all that can be done to ensure a fair trial and a good appeals procedure. Whilst I wouldn't deny that he execution of an innocent man is a terrible thing, I do believe that the benefits to society as a whole in having a legal system which retains this power, do outweigh that issue. And I say that as someone who in my family ancestry has had family members executed.

But the death penalty is only a more effective deterrent and satisfying retribution than imprisonment in a primitive, uneducated society.

Once the education and philosophy of a society improve death becomes far less scary than not being allowed to live ones life - making the DP somewhat useless.

But the death penalty is only a more effective deterrent and satisfying retribution than imprisonment in a primitive, uneducated society.

Once the education and philosophy of a society improve death becomes far less scary than not being allowed to live ones life - making the DP somewhat useless.

That's irrelevant. The discussion should turn solely upon what is the most efficient method by which the state can dispense with criminal elements who have not, are will not, contribute anything to it. Hence, capital punishment is infinitely more advisable than paying upwards of £2000 per day to incarcerate a single prisoner.

But the death penalty is only a more effective deterrent and satisfying retribution than imprisonment in a primitive, uneducated society.

Once the education and philosophy of a society improve death becomes far less scary than not being allowed to live ones life - making the DP somewhat useless.

I do not believe deterrent is the only point of having the DP. In addition being dead does include restrictions on being able to live your life at last as severely as being incarcerated, especially if ones name were to be taken out of the media domain, preventing any kind of "martyrdom" and fame beyond the grave, which is an important point when considering crimes against the state.

My position is, if you can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone is guilty of a serious crime, then by all means execute them. It's a lot more efficient and saves money in the long run.