Would you support capital punishment if it could be perfectly applied?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

In the real world, I do not think that capital punishment is ever justifiable. Not justice system operated by humans is ever going to able to execute anyone without sometimes executing the wrong people, and that's not an acceptable price to pay.

If, however, there existed some perfect, flawless way of finding out exactly what someone had done, why they had done it, whether there were any mitigating factors and so forth, I would be far less certain. I think that on balance I'd still oppose the death penalty, but far less confidently. What about you?


To put it another way, what I'm getting at is the difference between the following two statements:

"It is sometimes a correct decision to execute someone".
"There are people it would be a correct decision to execute".

I certainly disagree with the former; I'm much less sure about the latter. I just don't think we can be sure who, if there are any.

[liberal N proud]

1. An eye for an eye?

What about the one among you without sin be the first to cast stones? Forgive thy brother and all those parables?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. An eye for an eye is one thing; an eye for a sufficiently large number of eyes is another.

I think it's fairly clear that one shouldn't execute most murderers, especially those who've only offended once. But some people do things a lot worse than killing a single person relatively humanely.

I strongly disagree with the sentiment behind "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I think that we have a responsiblity to form opinions based on, which is to say to judge, and to act in ways determined by those opinions, which is to say in some cases to condemn, the actions of others.

Forgiveness is only unambiguously a virtue if the only victim of the sin you're forgiving is yourself. *My* forgiving someone for hurting *you* is often not a good deed.

[BlooInBloo]

2. About time somebody asks a question that's actually tough....

... I don't know.

:)

[undergroundpanther]

69. I know how I feel

Death is better than jail.Jails today rely on isolation. Isolation is torture.Death is more ethical than torture.
http://sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/98-09%20FALL/solitary.html

Tulam is one of more than 25,000 inmates who serve their sentences this way in the United States. It's not what these prisoners did on the outside that sends them to isolation: It's how they behave on the inside. And once in isolation, there is often no way out.

Two Decades in Solitude

In Tulam's case, he was sent to prison for trying to rob a gun store. He was sent to isolation after prison officials say they caught him planning to assault officers. He stayed in isolation for 18 years.

New Jersey prison officials say he never participated in any programs that could have gotten him out. Tulam says he tried to participate, but they never let him out, so he gave up.

Now, on the outside, Tulam has trouble making small talk. Even after all those years alone, when faced with people looking for a conversation, Tulam doesn't engage.

Tulam is one of more than 25,000 inmates who serve their sentences this way in the United States. It's not what these prisoners did on the outside that sends them to isolation: It's how they behave on the inside. And once in isolation, there is often no way out.

Two Decades in Solitude

In Tulam's case, he was sent to prison for trying to rob a gun store. He was sent to isolation after prison officials say they caught him planning to assault officers. He stayed in isolation for 18 years.

New Jersey prison officials say he never participated in any programs that could have gotten him out. Tulam says he tried to participate, but they never let him out, so he gave up.

Now, on the outside, Tulam has trouble making small talk. Even after all those years alone, when faced with people looking for a conversation, Tulam doesn't engage.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584841



Dr. Stuart Grassian has much experience in the area of evaluating psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. He has interviewed many prisoners. Based on his experiences, interviews, knowledge and research he has found individuals held in isolation kinds of conditions report an increasing inability to tolerate ordinary stimuli; simple things such as noise - the ordinary, everyday noises of plumbing and heating systems working.
http://www.danenet.org/amnesty/supermax.html

I spent 18 months in solitary in a mental hospital I did no crime,to this day the hum of fans makes me anxious and tense.
I have to cut off the stove fan asap if I burn something I can't stand the sound.It makes me crazy.And I know it is from the trauma of isolation.I don't make much eye contact either.There are so many things isolation has fucked up inside me.Years later and I still haven't healed.



And solitary is on the increase.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/

I would ask for death if I had the choice between solitary or death.

[wuushew]

3. We can learn more from the living than the dead

If pursuit of knowledge is a worthy goal, then executing criminals works contrary to this pursuit.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. No. There are many reasons to oppose it on...

practical grounds, but my primary opposition to it is ethical.

I simply do not believe that the state, or anyone else, has the right to single out people for death.

[billyoc]

5. No, the rich would still have charges pressed against them less often. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

12. Are you illiterate? He said "if it could be perfectly applied". It's an HYPOTHESIS.

[monarch]

82. Are you simply obnoxious?

"Perfectly applied" does not, nor could it ever, mean that that penalty would be sought in every case in which it might possibly apply. Our entire justice system would grind to a halt in a matter of seconds.

What every "literate" person would take the OP to mean is that where the penalty is appropriately sought, the system would then work "perfectly," and we would stop executing innocent people.

[BlooInBloo]

90. People really have no grasp what "hypothetical reasoning". LOL!

[nuxvomica]

6. There is an overriding moral principle that forbids the DP, IMHO

It is just plain morally wrong to harm someone over whom you have complete control. With authority over another's life comes great responsibility and in executing incarcerated prisoners the state fails at that responsibility and ultimately endangers its own moral authority. This inseparable connection between authority and responsibility is something, I'm afraid, that has been ignored in the debate of many issues. For example, health insurance companies exercise great authority over the health care of individuals yet manage to elude responsibility for outcomes.

edit: punctuation.

[undergroundpanther]

70. Death is preferable to a cage

Isolation which many jails do today is torture. Death is more moral and preferable to the psychological torture of an isolation cell for 23 hours a day.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/
http://www.webspawner.com/users/usprisontorture/

What do you do with people that cannot be trusted with freedom.Free them so they can ruin more lives,torture them until they reform or appear to reform and let them out even more messed up,or kill them quickly and as painlessly as possible?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. Not Sure You Can Accurately Make Such A Statement.

Though undoubtedly for some the choice of death would be welcomed, overall it would seem that most by far would still rather opt for imprisonment. I think this can be readily ascertained by exploring the large percentage of inmates on death row who put such effort into getting stays for their execution etc. If they preferred death, one would think this effort wouldn't occur.

[nevergiveup]

7. Absolutely not

with the possible exception of war mongering Republicans. :sarcasm:

[Redbear]

8. No. It's just wrong.

The imperfect application just makes it worse.

[kdmorris]

9. You mean if it was applied for only the most heinous crimes

and was completely class, gender and race blind? In other words, without any human intervention whatsoever, with no human foibles involved?

I don't know, to tell the truth. My basic issue with it is that it's vengeance, pure and simple. We use the death penalty as an extension of our own human emotions. But the law shouldn't be subject to emotions. It's pretty human to want to kill someone if they hurt your loved ones, but the law isn't supposed to be human. And it is.

So, while I find the situation you are presenting to be implausible, this would really have to be something I'd have to think about. I come down on this side of still being against it... but...it does make me wonder.

[TahitiNut]

10. Nope.

Humans have often deluded themselves that they're "perfect." It fails to demonstrate that killing is wrong - and instead teaches that it's a privilege (entitlement) to kill. In a more general sense, it models "might makes right" which is one of the WORST possible maxims to model. That such maxims are seductive is aptly demonstrated by the seduced - and should need no further explanation for those capable of mature reason.

[OzarkDem]

11. No

Its not our place to make the decision to take another's life, particularly when not acting in self defense or to protect the life of another.

[FarCenter]

13. To maintain a peaceful society, a small percentage of males must be removed

Historically, societies have accomplished this not only by judicial executions, but by several other means == sending them to penal colonies like the Carolinas or Australia, conscripting them into armies and sending them to the front lines, pressing them into the Navy or merchant marines, sending the to the frontier/colonies to fight the natives, etc.

It appears that we are signing up a certain number of psychopathic misfits for Iraq, both in the military and in the "contractor" ranks.

As for judicial executions, you need to balance the number of people erroneously executed against the number of people who would otherwise have been killed by escaped or released capital offenders.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. You've hit a trifecta.

Starting at the top:
1) No, it's not appropriate to skim off any portion of either gender periodically.
2) No, there's no reason to believe that psychopathic misfits are disproportionately represented in our armed services
3) "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," William Blackstone.

Some ethics classes might have been a good addition to your math education.

[MrSlayer]

14. Certainly.

I support it now in it's imperfect state. The definite "no doubt about it" cases such as the asshole who murdered the college kids in Newark last week are no-brainers, that guy should have been hanged yesterday. In cases where there is a lack of complete certainty the perp should get life without parole until absolute guilt or innocence can be determined. If it can not be determined then life is fine. I fail to see why absolutely guilty parties should be spared justice because a small percentage of innocent people have been executed in the past.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Not just in the past.

There is, I think, no possibility whatsoever that America will continue to execute people who it shouldn't.

I would far rather live in a society where I risk someone who does something horrible to me "only" being imprisoned rather than killed, than in one where I risk being wrongly executed.

There is no crime for which life in prison is a grossly inadequate sentence.

[Solon]

25. So how many innocent people are supposed to die before its too many for you?

Just a question.

[BlooInBloo]

27. I wonder if he/she would feel similarly if it was their child being wrongly executed.

[FarCenter]

31. There are two kinds of lethal errors that society makes

One is to wrongly execute a person who is not guilty of the capitol offense.

The other is to wrongly release a person who commits a subsequent capitol offense.

The death penalty should be applied to minimize the sum of the two types of error, and therefore minimize the number of wrongful deaths for which society is responsible.

Of course, it can be argued that capitol offendors should be permanently incarcerated so that they cannot commit subsequent murders. But that raises the issue of how many wrongful lifetime imprisonments you think are acceptable.

[BlooInBloo]

33. So say you, a most un-American sentiment that could possibly be expressed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Disagree. Do you support stealing organs from living people for donation?

I think it's precisely the same issue.

Killing someone is worse than allowing someone to die.

Killing one person to save another is not a morally neutral act; if saving any number of lives justifies killing someone innocent that number would have to be very large indeed.

The state should not kill some people to save other's lives.

[Solon]

39. So you must execute some innocent people because of the what some other people MAY do?

Where's the logic in that, take it to its logical conclusion, and see where that gets you.

[safeinOhio]

34. I think the only way is to

make anyone responsible for the death penalty, judges, juries and prosecutors, pay with their own if they make a mistake. No one would be put to death.

[MrSlayer]

45. If you read my post.

You would see that no innocent person would be executed under what I proposed.

[Selatius]

63. Your proposal is the current system in many states but still flawed.

Of course, you have states like Ohio, which put a moratorium on the death penalty after it was found several innocent people were about to be executed. Even in states that do have the system you propose, the simple fact is the judicial system is not perfect. No human institution is perfect. Innocent people still invariably end up on death row. There is still a problem of adequate representation for poor people. They cannot often afford good attorneys or even competent ones.

Regardless, I don't condone the death penalty on grounds that it deprives the condemned the opportunity for atonement, for absolution. People can reform, perhaps not all, but just in case, the door should be left open with at least life in prison. You may not be deemed safe to live in society ever again, but that shouldn't mean a person should be deprived the opportunity of reforming and offering help in reforming others in prison. Our prisons emphasize much punishment at the expense of reform, and the result is prisons becoming gladiator arenas.

[qdemn7]

36. You stated my position perfectly n/t

[piedmont]

15. Yes. Take the CT killers, for example. nt

[AlCzervik]

16. everybody has differnt version of "Perfect" imo.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Also - your second question doesn't capture an important issue....

... Try this one instead:

"There are people it would be a correct decision for the state to execute"

[Robeson]

18. No.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. No. n/t

[jody]

21. Yes but only if as you said "perfectly applied". Since I believe witnesses and jurors or fallible,

then I oppose capital punishment.

[Madspirit]

22. Still NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO...n/t

[BlooInBloo]

29. Hmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could ya stop beating around the bush? :)

[Madspirit]

46. I am well known for being subtle...OK, maybe not... : > ...n/t

[mike_c]

26. no

If I had perfect assurance that everyone sentenced to die was actually guilty of the crime they committed I would oppose capital punishment just as strongly. It's just revenge, plainly and simply, and revenge is not a business the state should be in.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. State sanctioned murder can never be perfectly applied. It's still murder. eom

[Monk06]

41. For the thread winning post you are entitled to the stuffed animal of your choice.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

44. I'll take Garfield!

;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. That's exactly what I *wasn't* asking.

Yes, obviously there is no system that would perfectly determine guilt or innocence.

That doesn't say anything about they hypothetical I'm asking about.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. What you should be asking is why are we the only western industrialized nation that still

has a death penalty? Then ask, why do we have per capita more murders than any other country amongst those nations? The death sentence has never been proven as a deterrent to murder. I think this is more important to ponder on than better ways to murder people with premeditation.

We are a bloodthirsty nation, and from the very start of our history, this land has seen violence. Violence towards the Native Americans, violence in wars on this soil and unjust wars on foreign soil, the violence of the old west, and violence begets violence. Etc, etc, etc,

At some point we have to become enlightened and say this violence has to end. and by saying state sanction murder is ok, we are saying on another level that murder is ok. Perhaps if we start there, our vicious cycle of violence will end.

[undergroundpanther]

67. Murder does not have to kill the body

Murder can happen slowly in an isolation cell.

I myself, if I was faced with life in a cell 23 hours a day, I would beg for my own death.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584841

Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

Death is not always wrong.

[NMMNG]

30. Killing to show that killing is wrong?

Never.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. No, because it's based on the idea that we should punish criminals to make them suffer

Which is what I believe is one of the fundamental flaws of the American Justice System.

We should send people to prison because crimes need to be punished or everyone will commit crimes. We should also send people to prison with the goal of rehabilitating them so that they are productive members of society when they are released. If you commit murder, we send you to prison for life or until you are very old, because we can't take a chance that you won't murder again.

Yet people seem to have this concept that punishment should be about making the prisoner suffer. That getting raped and beaten by your fellow inmates is good because you committed a crime therefore you should suffer. That isn't justice, it's vengeance. In many cases it isn't even vengeance because a huge portion of the prison population are those who committed victim less drug crimes or people that committed petty theft and got screwed by the three strikes laws. Yet the media has conditioned us to believe that everyone in prison is a rapist or a murderer and therefore they deserve what they get.

[Sapphocrat]

35. No. n/t

[Balbus]

37. Absolutely.

[DutchLiberal]

40. I would never, ever, under no circumstance, support capital punishment.

[undergroundpanther]

68. So you support torture than?

Life in solitary? Is that your mercy?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584841

Ever been in a room alone day in day out for 23 hours a day everyday?
No? than think twice about what misery your so called love of life even life lived out in torture of isolation means.

I would beg for my own death in a lethal injection rather than the cell and the slow torture death of my own mind.

Is your goal to stop crime or torture the condemned.
Solitary is torture and alot of prisons use it alot.
Death however stops one killer from ruining many lives and said killer is not made insane by solitary confinement torture.
Think about it. What do you do with people that cannot be trusted?

[Exiled in America]

72. False dichotomy.

Being against the death penalty does not mean being for anything else.

One can be against the death penalty and against all forms of cruel and unusual punishment.

If fact your response is a bit weird, as it basically translates into, we should kill people to avoid torturing them. I'm not sure that makes a lot of logical sense. I'd prefer we try to not kill people and treat prisoners in a humane way.

[undergroundpanther]

73. Have you ever been locked up?

Yes or no?
Have you ever had your freedom and humanity stripped away?

All authoritarian systems do this to people.

I faced this kind of misery in a mental hospital.3 years.18 months in solitary "for my own good" No crime committed by me.

Until you face this fact of what happens to people criminal or not when they fall into roles,of dominant and forced submission, you don't understand this issue of coercion and confinement and authoritarians is very serious ethically and goes far deeper, the question is quality of life and trust.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

[Exiled in America]

86. So the solution is to KILL people instead?

Your argument continues to get stranger. The subject of this thread was capital punishment. You keep acting like you need to educate me about prison conditions because I'm against capital punishment. That's absurd. It's insane to suggest that since solitary confinement is a cruel form of punishment we should just KILL people instead.

It is simply logically false that if someone is AGAINST capital punishment they are thus FOR solitary confinement or the inhumane treatment of prisoners. That's what you said, and its simply not true.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not solitary is humane treatment or not. Of course it isn't. But this thread was about whether or not its a good idea for the state to kill people.

You can both be against the death penalty and for humane treatment which might mean opposing solitary confinement as a form of corrective action, supporting a prisoner's bill of rights, and expecting very explicit standards for prisoner mental, physical and emotional health be maintained.

"All authoritarian systems do this to people."

Work is an authoritarian system. You can't find too many jobs that don't have an authoritarian structure. Government is an authoritarian system. Capitalism is an authoritarian system. Anyone who has been born into this society and breathed the air has faced the impacts of authoritarian institutions on their lives.

The argument that no one can understand or be qualified to have an opinion on the death penalty or the fair and humane treatment of prisoners until they've been locked up in solitary confinement is also logically unsound. If that is true then it should also be true that no one is qualified to have an opinion on the death penalty until they've been executed - but that doesn't logically work.

What's needed is exposure and education. That can take the form of a direct first hand experience. Or it can take the form of careful study and close work with people who have been through it. I worked for the American Civil Liberties Union, and I am intimately familiar with prison conditions in the united states. The ACLU deals with prisoner cases of mistreatment and rights violations on a daily basis. On a broader level, we must be very familiar with the horrible effect of prison privatization on treatment standards, the emotional and psychological effects of certain correction methods, including solitary, and on and on.

NONE OF THAT MAKES IT OK TO KILL PEOPLE. That is the only point of this entire thing. And somehow you seem to have gotten very tangentially lost in your own little world of issues.

[undergroundpanther]

99. Ok

You take care of those who want you to suffer and love them. You go into prison and tell them how sorry for them you are and let them destroy you for caring and dupe the hell out of you,to take up their cause,psychopaths manipulate through pity you know, maybe they'd get you to fool a parole board, to get released and go kill someone again, So eager to save a criminal ,ever ask how many innocent people have to die until you realize there are not many options left for dealing with this psychopathy problem.. Because death is what psychopaths are.And they cannot be cured of who they are.
So what do you do? More of the same that has not worked?

[DutchLiberal]

77. I call bullshit on your post.

Go flame somehwere else.

[Pyrzqxgl]

43. I can't condone the Death Penalty for anyone!

When the people (i.e.governmewnt) take a life that makes me a murderer for I am the people.
I've never understood how so many so-called pro-life Christians are so much in favor of the
death penalty. Isn't that one of the big ten? They're all going to hell every time the state
kills someone.

[Az]

48. No

Even if it is perfectly applied no one has the right to kill anyone else unless they are defending themselves from immediate threat. And a person incarcerated is not an immediate threat.

Its very simple. I do not give any one else the right to kill me. Under any circumstance. Thus I cannot presume that anyone else grants me the right to kill them under any circumstance. The notion that the society somehow overrides someone's right to life presumes the society decides who lives and dies. That is a bad starting position in the first place.

[Nutmegger]

49. Absolutely not!

The lost of innocent lives is a major reason why I'm vehemently against the death penalty, but I also believe that we as a society are better than a bunch of pack animals.

Regardless of the crime, a person needs to be treated as a person. We should never sink down to their level and demand blood for blood.

We can't choose who receives basic human rights. That's why I'm against prison rape, against the death penalty, against all forms of torture.

[defendandprotect]

50. You're presuming that there are INFALLIBLE human beings -- ?????

No one is infallible; therefore, there is no such thing as Capital Punishment being "perfectly applied."

And -- still -- NO, NO, NO a thousand times NO --
because you can't teach non-violence with violence.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. No, I'm not, as I said in the OP. Try reading it again?

I'm presuming that there are not; I'm asking a question about what if there were.

Also, I don't think the argument that you can't teach not-violence with violence is a relevant objection, because the objective of punishing criminals is not to "teach" that all violence is wrong in all circumstances. It is to discourage *breaking the law*, which is a very different thing.

[defendandprotect]

96. "Perfectly applied" can only refer to perfect/infallible human beings sitting in judgement -- !!!!

When you presume "perfection," you are presuming infallibility -- !!!!

When you have the state "murder" someone, you are sending out a message to EVERYONE . . .
i.e., that violence cures violence.

And I'm quite sure that it doesn't teach the deceased anything -- !!!!

[frogcycle]

51. Hell, I'm all for it!

Oh, it needs to be a little more carefully applied and all, but there are flat-out sociopaths that just need to be snuffed.

[Common Sense Party]

57. Child rapists, child torturers, serial murderers, etc.

They don't deserve to breathe the same air as civilized humans.

[mvd]

52. No, I wouldn't

The death penalty still doesn't solve anything in my opinion. But it would be more of a morals thing alone.

[BoneDaddy]

53. Absolutely

It reduces their chance of escape from prison to nil.

[Bluebear]

54. ,

wrong place

[Bluebear]

55. No, the death penalty is not progressive. nt

[nofurylike]

56. no. n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

58. No, never

If I am against the death penalty, then I am against it in all cases, no matter how heinous the crime, no matter how guilty the condemned.

Playing the "what if" game with people's lives is childish. Once you get the other person to say, "Yes, I would agree with the death penalty in that (hypothetical) case or under those (hypothetical) conditions," you can then extrapolate and make them agree that capital punishment in and of itself is all right.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not all right. Not under any circumstances. Not for any crime, not for any degree of guilt. Never.

That said, you need to look at your assumptions. What do you mean by "perfect"? Only when the condemned is deemed to be guilty beyond any possibility of doubt? When he/she has confessed? When there are abundant witnesses and incontrovertible evidence? What you leave out of that is the fact that among the various states that still have capital punishment, different crimes are determined to be capital crimes. What if a crime in one state is a capital offense, but not in another? How can the application of the death penalty by "perfect" there?

These are, of course, rhetorical questions and I don't expect answers, because any answers would only be a futile attempt to persuade me that there can ever be a "perfect" application of a "justice" that is inherently imperfect.

No, no, a million times no. Never. Not under any circumstances, not for any crime. No. Not even for the worst war criminals. Not even for the slimiest members of the booooosh administration. Never.


Tansy Gold

[Jed Dilligan]

59. Yes, it is possible

But only if it is reserved for treason and crimes of office. There is never a question of guilt in such crimes--we know who did it--and they affect many more people than rape or murder.

[Heidi]

62. Are you saying there is never a question of guilt in cases of treason,

even when the government (almost always the accuser in cases of treason) is the accuser?

[Jed Dilligan]

65. Not when the accused is president or vice-president

Who else was there to do what they did?

:shrug:

Cooked books? It's pretty much the CFO and the CEO.

The main thing here is that these are rational crimes where a deterrent would actually be functional. No one ever said, "Ooh, I'd better not rape and kill this little girl because I might get the death penalty." But it might keep some preppie boys' hands out of the cookie jar, for once.

[Heidi]

60. Sorry to be cynical, but I can't suspend disbelief long enough

to entertain the "if it could be perfectly applied" fantasy. As long as imperfect human beings are investigating, prosecuting, defending and judging the also imperfect accused, there are too many variables for capital punishment to ever be perfectly applied.

[Richard Steele]

61. Would you support monkeys flying out of your ass, if THAT could be perfectly controlled?

I would, but I don't waste anyone else's time
by asking their opinion of it, knowhutImean?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. Whereas you have chosen to waste your time on this?

By contrast, most of the other posts this thread has generated have put forward substantive opinions which are not wastes of time.

[Exiled in America]

95. I could get behind that. :)

[undergroundpanther]

64. Some people abuse freedom

and use it to abuse people. They have no consience and cannot grow one.
Yet they cannot be trusted.

So what do you do with these people? lock them up in cages? That in of itself is a form of torture.

I'd rather die than live the rest of my life in a solitary cell 23 hours a day.

I lived that way for 18 months committed no crimes,and it was torture.As a psych patient.

Try living in a small room for a year or longer where the light is on all the time,you have no rights no privacy, no dignity,and see if you find yourself enraged psycho and longing for death.

In some cases death is better than living.

I would rather kill the psychopath quickly rather than stoop to the psychopaths level by doing the slow rot and torture of the cage. Quality of life is what I am talking about here.If a life in a cell is devoid of human connection and love is it worth living? giving a torturer,Torture or death? which is more moral?

To me death is a mercy compared to jail and it does stop the one psychopath from ever harming again.It is amazing the numbers of destruction of lives 1 psychopath does in his years free) and Death is better than the torture of being in a cell 23 hours a day.I am not so cruel to condemn a person to life in a cage.


PICTURE LIVING IN A CAGE the size of your bathroom, with tiers of single cages above, below, and to either side. You remain in this cage nearly 24 hours a day, day in and day out, year in and year out. Ruchelle Magee lived under these conditions in California for more than 20 years. Russell Shoats has been living in various Pennsylvania isolation units for 17 years.

The use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons began in 1829, based on the early Quaker religious philosophy that solitary introspection would lead to penitence and reform. It soon became clear that people in isolation often suffer mental breakdown, so the general practice of isolation was abandoned. However, isolation as a means of administrative control continued and has grown to alarming proportions. In more recent times, abuse of isolation is combined with behavioral modification programs, including physical beatings, use of devices of torture, and psychological abuse.
http://sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/98-09%20FALL/solitary.html

It's more common than you think.I'd rather die than go back into that fucking room.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584841

[undergroundpanther]

66. Are isolation cells progressive than?

For me having been in isolation as a psych patient .. I think I would choose death over the rest of my life in a cell again.

July 26, 2006 · Over the past two decades, solitary confinement has moved out of the prison basement and into whole facilities built just for isolation. These places have many names -- Supermax, intensive-management units, secure housing -- but the meaning is the same: years alone, out of the public view and away from public oversight.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584841

Is behavior modification,isolation torture and "aversive therapy" progressive? What is a life worth if it is a life of torment?
Death can be mercy. I support the death penalty if it was accurate and just,because the cell 23 hours a day is torture.And torture is ALWAYS wrong. Torture is evil. It is more evil than mere death.
Death sometimes mercy especially when freedom is impossible and the prisoner proves cannot be trusted with freedom anymore..because of the lives he destroys when he is given a chance at freedom and is not supervised by armed guards and chained up.A torturer cannot be trusted with freedom or power .Be it an authority or a criminal.
But the torturer need not be tortured to take away his ability to harm.Just kill them.Fast and as pain free as possible.Death is not torture.Life in a cell IS.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. There's a world of difference between permitting and enforcing death.

I don't know what choice I'd make if given a choice between solitary confinement and execution, but I would at least prefer to be given the choice.

[Exiled in America]

71. Nope. The state shouldn't kill people.

[undergroundpanther]

74. It's ok if the state kills them slowly in boxes than?

Death of the body is preferable to 20 years in a box.
That's what prisons do, they do solitary confinement.
That is death of a different kind one that does not offend your utopian niceties.
But live through it and you will never be the same.You die either way.
For me I would rather die than be in solitary.

[Exiled in America]

87. Jesus fucking christ - get this through your head:

No solitary is not ok.

No capital punishment is not ok.

How many times to I have to keep saying this over and over and over again to you? We got a learning disability, here? Mental condition?

Saying that the state shouldn't kill people DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM equal saying the state should lock people up in solitary confinement.

Your experiences at a mental institution seem to be totally skewing your ability to carry on a rational discussion. You can BOTH be against the death penalty AND against the cruel and inhumane treatment of people, including the use of solitary confinement.

So every time someone says they are against capital punishment, there's no need for you to run in and post that thus they must be for solitary confinement. That's ignorant and irrational and completely incorrect. A person can be for neither.

[Mind_your_head]

75. No

.

[davekriss]

76. No (n/t)

[Hosnon]

81. My and your positions are just about identical.

I have a presumption against killing human beings because it probably tends to increase violence in society. However, that presumption can be overcome by other concerns, e.g., deterrence, retribution.

If a particular defendant has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a particularly heinous crime and the substantial majority of relevant studies show that the death penalty does act as a deterrent to a significant degree, then I may consider the death penalty as a possible appropriate punishment.

[annabanana]

83. No. I do not want murder done in my name.. . . . n/t

[cgrindley]

84. The state never has the right to kill its citizens

so no, never.

[Fla_Democrat]

85. I would support life in prison, if it could be perfectly applied.

:shrug:

[porphyrian]

88. I don't think so.

I don't think killing a person is worse than making them live out their lives in prison, where they die anyway.

[spanone]

89. no

[The Inquisitive]

91. I think I would

If it could be perfectly applied through a perfect, unbiased, and complete uncorrupt justice system incapable of making mistakes then yes. At that point I see the death penalty as making a statement as, "we the people of the earth and this community deem your actions and person so contrary and detrimental to the wellbeing of society that we hereby banish you from worldly existence as we know it."

My biggest "beef" with capital punishment is with the extremely poor implementation, and practical problems that arise, not particularly a moral one.

[SoonerPride]

92. Never

Ever.

Never.

[LeftishBrit]

94. No, I would still oppose it

The only way that I might be persuaded to support it in some instances would be if it were applied perfectly AND I thought it was a real deterrent. Even then, I wouldn't feel morally comfortable about it.

[pinto]

97. No. I don't support the death penalty in any format.

[WindRavenX]

98. Nope.

NT

[Downtown Hound]

100. Nope

It's archaic and backwards. Something best left to the past.

[Midlodemocrat]

101. No.

[lonestarnot]

102. Interesting idea, but still think it is worse penalty as a life sentence w/o parole.

Especially within a private prison. And in a world of private prisons, there's room for one on every corner, so long as they are profitable.