A Perfect Argument in Favor of the Death Penalty.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...-wife-40-years-ago/ar-AAExghG?ocid=spartandhp

People routinely argue that life in prison would be a viable alternative to the death penalty. Yet I've pointed out that there is a strong incentive by penal systems to release even murderers once they get "too old" and are "unlikely to reoffend".

This shows that is not necessarily true. A person who has murdered someone will always be a threat.

Perfect argument?

The question is not whether a released murder could kill again, but whether he is more likely to do so than anyone else. If he isn't, then there is in fact no additional threat created by his release.

Even if he is, then justification for the death penalty does not follow. One could alternatively conclude that he shouldn't have been released or that the brutal conditions in US prisons should be reviewed to reduce recidivism.

Seems like a better argument for abolishing for-profit prisons.

The data on re offending amongst those convicted of murder is conflicting when you take a broad brush approach and it's not easy to give a simple summary in a forum post. An awful lot rides on what we are going to actually term recidivism (or re offending - the terms are often mistakenly used interchangeably) and if we aren't looking at recurrence of the specific offence how far removed a latter offence can be in its' nature yet still qualify.

Re offending rates are high pretty much universally across the criminal spectrum, especially with regard to violent offenders where there is no financial motivation, but it's not clear whether murder actually carries any more weighty risks than any other violent crime.

People who go on to commit another murder represent a significant but low figure (less than 3% by even the most generous counts), primarily representing those with sociopathic or other personality traits which predispose them to violence (and it's worth noting that they are also amongst the highest risk for offending whilst incarcerated along with those with gang affiliations) but that doesn't really reflect the broader population of those who have committed murders.

On aggregate there's a lot of data to suggest violent reoffending rates amongst murder convicts are generally lower than for other violent offenders. This makes sense if you consider the length of sentencing alone, the mean age of discharge by definition tends to be much higher than for those convicted of lesser offences. That means you have are comparing samples at different life stages and different experiences of the penal system. Older generally equals less dangerous for several reasons (reduced physical capacity, age related reductions in aggression, greater life experience, greater exposure to moderated factors such as rehabilitation, longer time spent incarcerated) but also skews the data by reducing the timeframe available for re offending.

Recidivism is higher however when non violent charges are considered (parole/supervision violations, drug charges) but that in itself is a long way indeed from being justification for the death penalty.

Personally I don't see a justification for introducing (or maintaining) that death penalty based on re offending risks which are only really noteworthy amongst a very specific subset of those who have committed a murder (not least because it would likely make me redundant....) especially given that in most jurisdictions the financial burden of an appeals process is actually higher than life term sentencing. What makes more sense is high secure provision allowing for rigorous psychiatric and psychological assessment of those highest risk individuals and the risks they pose. I actually have no issue whatsoever with a system which allows for people to be detained long after projected release dates or even indefinitely should those risks warrant it.

We allow for that here under the remit of the Mental Health Act and specific sections which deal with those referred by prisons, the courts or police forces for assessment in relation to an offence or concerns raised whilst incarcerated. In theory that does allow for indefinite detention but in practise is moderated by massive (and binding) provision for staged reductions in the levels of security and supervision. In fact it is the presence and legal weight of those provisions (along with the independent oversight mandated) which are used to justify what could otherwise very easily become powers open to abuse.

The overwhelming majority of American prisoners are NOT held in for profit prisons. Besides what makes you think this guy was?

your son was a boatswain mate after failing cooks a school.!

I do not believe the state should have the power to enact murder as revenge.

Your argument is flawed.

It's tacky to post threads about yourself outside of the Blue Room.

Well...

Other than profit margins, what's the incentive to release elderly prisoners?

Remember folks, Dayton doesn't care if the odd innocent person gets executed, so long as we kill guilty ones as well. I'm sure many of you will be interested in knowing who shared that philosophy.

Indeed, I do not believe there should be a state. That said, you can have a state against the death penalty, too, because it values all human life. Obviously, Dayton doesn’t consider this, only how it affects the budget.

Good post.

@Dayton3 which part of it do you disagree with?

For starters all prisons have government guidelines of the number of inmates they can house.
secondly, even public prisons don't have unlimited resources.

And you didn't answer the question: What makes you think the guy was in a privately run prison?

We routinely give our government the power to kill people directly or indirectly.

That would fall under one of the myriad reasons I am against the state.

Your argument is still flawed, as it doesn’t address all of the issues behind the death penalty.

If you were absolutely certain that the condemned committed the crime they were going to be executed for would you still oppose it? If so then why?

I would oppose it. I do not hand the power of life and death over to the state, for one, and second, I am firmly against the death penalty in all cases.

Why not?

You didn't ask me, but personally, and excluding the possibility that the accused is innocent of the crime, the State can decide what is a capital crime.

If Magneto was real and we had built prisons to contain him, which he escaped, when I’d be fine with capital punishment. They’d have to be a constant danger to the public and conventional containment doesn’t work.

Not I disagree with Magneto, I think the movie version and 90s cartoon version is largely justified in his actions. Now Ultimate universe Magneto is a very clear danger and after he nearly caused an extinction event, killing millions, the Ultimates and surviving X-Men were fully justified in killing him. This unfortunately did result in the death penalty (even by the public) being extended to any mutant anywhere who openly uses their powers, that might have been any overreaction. Poor Kitty Pride got threatened with that by a teacher in school.

I’ve been on the fence for a long time regarding the death penalty and I think I still am, but I’m leaning more libertarian. OBL probably needed to be executed, but maybe the state is not good with incarceration of prisoners and fucks up quite a bit.

What if the accused openly admits to committing a capital crime?

1. What if the capital crime in question is being gay, or blasphemy?

2. People have admitted to committing crimes that it turns out they didn't commit.

Then put them in prison for the rest of their lives. Killing them is ending their punishment early.

If being Christian was a capital crime, I'd support the death penalty.

There's an interesting argument there (one I think is flawed - but interesting nonetheless) that framing the state as that which has power over life and death means the death penalty and public healthcare are two sides of the same coin. If the states' duties include taking life from the guilty, they should also ensure life for the innocent.

Both have been called overreach by various parts of the political spectrum.

Just musing.

The obvious response here is to point out there's a surprisingly low correlation between admissions and guilt.

"absolutely certain"

that's why... because in the case of most capital crimes I don't believe there can be both absolute certainty without substantial mitigating factors.

extreme example... a guy in my circle of friends killed his parents when he was 13.

There were reasons, natch.

Do you execute someone - in this case a minor- who has been victimized by those that become their "victims" with no access to legal protection?

(He did five years for it, BTW... somehow got a life insurance pay out, too... not sure how that worked)