1. Not defending his crimes or anything, but Shiratori was not a Serial killer, but a thief who was also accused of murder because of his reputation.(Doesn't really matter)
2. Most prison escapes are foiled at the beginning, and the ones that succeed usually get recaptured right away
3. I don't think we will ever see another Shiratori again. The man literally escaped using Miso Soup once, which is insane.
4. Even James Earl Ray escaped prison the first time for a year, but in his second attempt, as recaptured in 3 days.
I don't think the possibility of prisoners escaping is the biggest reason in this arguement.
What's the accent mark after the 92 in Florida for?
If you believe sentencing should be more concerned about deterrence, rehabilitation, and the good of society as I do, then death would be reserved for those individuals whom are irredeemable and never able to reenter society and whose continued existence will only cause pain to themselves and to others since they are not able to be part of any functioning community.
I think this view ties back to a mistaken idea that your loved ones can speak for you. The only person who should really be allowed to make that decision is the victim. And, well, they can't.
Sure, there's "practically" or "basically" or "very nearly" a 100% chance, but in no way is there a literal 100% chance.
There is no perfectly moral answer because this is real life, not some cosmic battle from a superhero movie. It upsets me deeply how many people on both sides of this discussion are fooling themselves into thinking there is.
Arguing that removing a criminal who cannot be rehabilitated from society humanely is "worse" than keeping them locked in a box forever where great efforts will be made to prevent them from taking their own life and they will be denied the same access to the appeals process that those on death row receive is beyond moronic. If criminals get to choose their own sentences now I'd like to retroactively submit that all those speeding tickets I had to pay steep fines for would be much more civilized if they were sensual massages instead of fines.
The fanatical obsession people have with preserving and prolonging life at all costs and in all conditions no matter what is the height of idiocy. But then again, what can you expect out of someone who believes the death penalty is disgusting and uncivilized?
Do the unsupported insults help my argument any?
Most of my comment was substantive. Although my tone was obviously impertinent, I didn't insult the poster until the end, and frankly, I don't feel bad about calling kapulan a moron because kapuluan seems like a moron.
And your characterization of my argument is disingenuous, but since I sense that your goal was to annoy me rather than to take a position, I won't waste my energy refuting it, except to say that a state choosing not to commit murder is hardly the same as letting a prisoner choose his own sentence.
If the criminal justice system is flawed, and I believe it is, this is an argument for the reformation and improvement of the criminal justice system. It is not a good argument for or against the death penalty. Currently Americans given the death penalty get FAR greater access to the appeals process than those given life sentences and are much more likely to prove their innocence because of this. This is why people say the death penalty is more expensive. Maybe you are an awful person?
Your argument is pretty much the same as that made to me by Robert Blecker once. He agreed that the way the death penalty is meted out is unjust, but that the death penalty itself is justifed. His justification for it is purely based on revenge, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of the US justice system, on paper at least, which is surprising for a Professor of Law.
Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846.
Rhode Island in 1852.
Wisconsin in 1853.
Maine in 1887.
The United States Supreme Court effectively banned it altogether in 1972. Though it was reinstated in some places in 1976.
Belarus still allows the death penalty.
Latvia abolished it in 2012.
The Netherlands (in all its territories) in 2010.
Russia in 2009.
Albania in 2007.
the UK in 2006 (Jersey), or 1998.
not that this will stop any European from acting like they are god's gift to humanity. Let's see.. thousands of years of crucifixions, burning people alive, public disembowelment and beheading, displaying decapitated heads on London Bridge, torture, castration of homosexuals, genocide, holocaust, and starting the trans-Atlantic slave trade... but... you (almost) abolished the death penalty on the continent five years ago?? Wow! SO civilized! Give yourselves a cookie
Modern days are a bit different, though. For instance a country cannot be a member of the European Union if it practices death penalty. Are there any plans in the US that I'm unaware of to expell states that have capital punishment in their state legislation?
Making arguments about how "civilized" a country/group of people is is always an ugly affair. By definition, all of humanity (or the vast vast majority anyways) is civilized... which doesn't stop human rights violations from occurring almost everywhere. Making the "uncivilized" argument does nothing but dehumanizes people.
And using historical barbarism to condemn a modern nation is patently absurd. As is using historical barbarism to justify current barbarism. You may as well say it's justified to execute women for adultery because somewhere, sometime they did the same.
On the "against" side most arguments come down either to cultural chauvinism or to the idea that all life is sacred. The latter belief also cannot be supported. It's a religious argument and therefore not compelling.
Very few people on either side make rational arguments about what's objectively good for society or those affected by the crime or application of justice. When they do they are often weak arguments... A thin veneer that if you tug on slightly will reveal the revenge or biophilia motives at the root of each rationale.
Usually I think logical arguments are important, but this the capital punishment debate is one place where logic falls apart. How do we, as individuals, know what's best for society? How do we decide what is best for the criminals and their families? There are no good answers to these questions.
Are there people who deserve to die? Probably. In extreme circumstances, like for people who commit war crimes and serious human rights violations, I'd be okay with the death penalty. There are several Latin American countries (Chile, Brazil, El Salvador) that have adopted this model. Notably though, most of those countries haven't had to use the death penalty in decades.
Outside of these cases, I really don't think we have a right to decide who lives or dies.
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
But boy do I love the south!
Always leading the way!
And lastly: Doesn't it bother you, that your government has the right to offhandedly decide about your lifes worth? Criminals are citizens and any government has to take an oath to protect them. If they have no problem breaking this oath, how can you trust them to stand up for you?
Gerald Gardiner QC once pointed out that it would be a strange person who considered death a deterrent to committing a crime, but life in prison insufficient deterrent.
When Canada abolished the death penalty, the rate of capital crimes went down, while the rate of conviction for capital crimes went up. This suggests that the death penalty is no deterrent, but it does deter juries from convicting if their decision will result in the death of the accused.
Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2022
Contact Us | Go To Top | View Mobile Site