The Death Penalty

[najaB]

Personally, I consider that the death penalty is only justifiable in time of war for acts of espionage, sabotage and treason. If a soldier can legitimately risk being killed once they put on a uniform, why should someone carrying out similar acts be protected because they aren‘t wearing a uniform?

I can't fault the logic, as long as there is zero doubt about guilt and that the convicted person doesn't demonstrate any remorse.

One of my friends from Alsace recently found out that his grandfather was forced to fight for the Germans in WW2. I wouldn't support the death penalty in such cases.

 

[Gloster]

I can't fault the logic, as long as there is zero doubt about guilt and that the convicted person doesn't demonstrate any remorse.

One of my friends from Alsace recently found out that his grandfather was forced to fight for the Germans in WW2. I wouldn't support the death penalty in such cases.

The German authorities forcibly enrolled around 130,000 Alsatians and Mosellans into the German armed forces, including the Waffen-SS: they are known as the malgré-nous. They was little alternative for them: refusal or disappearance risked their families being deported. How they were dealt with after the war was a definite hot potato for the French authorities, particularly as thirteen malgré-nous (and an Alsatian volunteer to the Waffen-SS) were involved in the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane.

 

[the sniper]

Personally I find the "saving money" argument for the death penalty over long prison sentences to be in really, really bad taste - irrespective of the other arguments for or against.


"We've just discovered that John Smith did not carry out that terrorist atrocity. However, we cannot let him out, because we killed him to save money!"

Those against the death penalty seem to be keen on it being handed out willy-nilly, I wouldn't envisage it being common. A prerequisite should be a higher burden of proof to be tied to it, such that proof of guilt is irrefutably. In this day and age, there'll be cases where that is possible, unlike decades ago.

As for the money aspect, it's not so much saving money, I just personally can't justify the resources allocated to maintaining the existence of particularly evil people who can never achieve redemption, given the impact and nature of their crimes. I don't get the warm feeling that some evidently do from funding the continued, relatively comfortable existence of the likes of Couzens. Or the thought that Anders Breivik will hopefully some day get to have a nice walk in a park, having put his troubles behind him. Their lives just aren't as precious to me as they are to others. That's fair enough, as I can just imagine that it's your contributions to the State that are going to caring for them. They're yours. Maybe it's a price worth paying for the moral high ground, for some?

Is there actually any point in keeping people, who committed a crime when they were young, in prison when they are in their 70s or 80s?

I actually think that's just a little bit cruel, however bad the crime they did was.

I have to admit I look up to places like Norway. I believe they are amongst the most civilised in the world on these matters.

In fact if someone showed genuine remorse, I'd let them out no matter what they did.

How are you proving 'genuine remorse'? If a miscarriage of justice is too likely for the death penalty to exist, I'm not sure you can let people free on the basis of what you think they think. Though to be fair, you probably don't need to spend too many years in prison before you're inclined to feel remorse for what you did.

You should write Wayne Couzens a letter, I'm sure he'd appreciate the thought that someone's out there rooting for him to turn his life around...

 

[Gloster]

Anders Behring Breivik is a bit of a problem. The maximum sentence in Norway is twenty-one years, with parole possible after 14. However, it is possible to extend the detention for five years at a time if the prisoner is still considered to be a danger. From what I know, I do not think that the authorities will have much difficulty in deciding that he is still such a danger. Despite his constant use of the legal system, he almost seems to be deliberately courting such a decision.

And as a cautionary point. The first person sentenced under the current law to the maximum penalty in 2001 and 2002 was released in February 2021 and declared entirely innocent in December 2022.

 

[najaB]

As for the money aspect, it's not so much saving money, I just personally can't justify the resources allocated to maintaining the existence of particularly evil people who can never achieve redemption, given the impact and nature of their crimes.

As noted above, experience from the USA has shown that costs up to ten times more to execute someone than it would to keep them incarcerated for life. So I can't justify the resources allocated to executing them, given the impact and nature of their crimes.

Those against the death penalty seem to be keen on it being handed out willy-nilly, I wouldn't envisage it being common. A prerequisite should be a higher burden of proof to be tied to it, such that proof of guilt is irrefutably. In this day and age, there'll be cases where that is possible, unlike decades ago.

As also noted above, the vast majority of instances where someone is convicted of a murder that they didn't commit aren't due to a lack of evidence of their innocence, but rather due to investigational and/or prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think to me death is too final, for two reasons.

1. There are too many miscarriages of justice and in practice always will be because the legal process cannot by definition be perfect. You can't give back years in prison (though you can and should compensate financially for e.g. lost earnings), but you definitely can't bring someone back to life. Even if someone admits to a crime they may not have actually committed it, there could be another actor in the background coercing them to do so.

2. Criminals can genuinely reform. Not every criminal (even if they did something really, really bad) is necessarily going to reoffend if released 50 years later, and there are plenty of psychological methods to work on that.

I don't have an issue with "life means life" type sentences for very serious crimes, for instance murdering children, but there always has to be scope, if there's a significant material change of situation, to release them again. OK, I'm not a career criminal, but to me a year in the slammer is bad enough that I'd want to avoid it at more or less any cost, so longer sentences tend to be more about a combination of reform and protecting the public, which means you need to be able to consider progress with those things when deciding what to do.

 

[Cdd89]

Once you're dead you're dead. If you're still in prison you can be released and the State can attempt to make amends for it's failure. That's quite a fundamental difference.

By comparing estimates of wrongful imprisonment with figures of those exonerated, most people wrongly imprisoned are never later found innocent outwith a formal appeal at the time of their initial conviction (which would also apply to the death penalty). This makes sense as it usually takes some unlikely chance for that to happen.

We therefore already accept a situation where miscarriages of justices mostly have lifelong effects. The relevant statistic is not therefore an estimate of how many people are wrongly convicted and could be released (but won’t be), but how many people actually are exonerated after all appeals have been exhausted. This is sadly an incredibly small number.

It may be argued that, even so, it’s better to life-imprison people wrongly than to kill people wrongly — but that is a value judgment. I would personally rather be dead than spend the remainder of my life in prison, and it’s not even a difficult call. (Ironically, this is the stronger argument against capital punishment, in my opinion!).

 

[najaB]

By comparing estimates of wrongful imprisonment with figures of those exonerated, most people wrongly imprisoned are never later found innocent outwith a formal appeal at the time of their initial conviction (which would also apply to the death penalty). This makes sense as it usually takes some unlikely chance for that to happen.

Using the USA as an exemplar (as one of the few modern, Western democracies where death sentences are still regularly imposed), sadly there are a significant number of cases where the initial appeal (or appeals) get rejected and it takes years (or decades!) to get the case reviewed.

The problem is that overturning a verdict is contrary to the interests of both the State and its justice system which holds at it's core the principle that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Every case where a conviction is overturned chips away at that foundation of trust in the legal system.

 

[MikeWM]

I don't believe that the death penalty has any place in a (supposedly) civilized society. There's a whole host of reasons why - moral, practical, judicial, and human.

I think *in an ideal world* someone who faced the certainty of prison for the rest of their life should be allowed to choose death instead, if they truly preferred that. But I can't see any way this could possibly work in practice, as the potential for abuse is so obvious.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As noted above, experience from the USA has shown that costs up to ten times more to execute someone than it would to keep them incarcerated for life. So I can't justify the resources allocated to executing them, given the impact and nature of their crimes.

And applying an ounce of common sense ought to immediately tell you that, if that figure is correct, then there must be something very wrong with the system and the bureaucracy that produces that cost. It is utterly absurd that it should cost more basically to give someone an injection than it would cost to keep them locked up and guarded and to look after them and feed them etc. for - maybe, 50 years.

Given that the US is renowned for having a very expensive justice system, I suspect you wouldn't need to look far to start getting some idea why the costs are so high.

The high costs would constitute a reasonable argument against the death penalty only if you could demonstrate that those costs are somehow inevitable in any reasonable justice system, as opposed to being a result of the idiosyncrasies of the US system.

 

[najaB]

And applying an ounce of common sense ought to immediately tell you that, if that figure is correct, then there must be something very wrong with the system and the bureaucracy that produces that cost. It is utterly absurd that it should cost more basically to give someone an injection than it would cost to keep them locked up and guarded and to look after them and feed them etc. for - maybe, 50 years.

Given that the US is renowned for having a very expensive justice system, I suspect you wouldn't need to look far to start getting some idea why the costs are so high.

The high costs would constitute a reasonable argument against the death penalty only if you could demonstrate that those costs are somehow inevitable in any reasonable justice system, as opposed to being a result of the idiosyncrasies of the US system.

The main driver behind those higher costs is that when prosecutors seek the death penalty they typically seek to make the airtight case that posters here are holding as a prerequisite - which means that cases are longer and require more expensive expert testimony. In many states, there is an automatic appeal and then usually numerous subsequent appeals.

Trials are hideously expensive as compared to the incremental cost of feeding one additional prisoner.

 

[the sniper]

And applying an ounce of common sense ought to immediately tell you that, if that figure is correct, then there must be something very wrong with the system and the bureaucracy that produces that cost. It is utterly absurd that it should cost more basically to give someone an injection than it would cost to keep them locked up and guarded and to look after them and feed them etc. for - maybe, 50 years.

Given that the US is renowned for having a very expensive justice system, I suspect you wouldn't need to look far to start getting some idea why the costs are so high.

The high costs would constitute a reasonable argument against the death penalty only if you could demonstrate that those costs are somehow inevitable in any reasonable justice system, as opposed to being a result of the idiosyncrasies of the US system.

Indeed. Another factor is that many of these peoples cases are essentially historic at this point and weren't clear cut even in their time, where they were convicted without the weight and nature of evidence that can be available now in some cases. The death penalty for marginal cases is clearly a bad idea.

The main driver behind those higher costs is that when prosecutors seek the death penalty they typically seek to make the airtight case that posters here are holding as a prerequisite - which means that cases are longer and require more expensive expert testimony. In many states, there is an automatic appeal and then usually numerous subsequent appeals.

Trials are hideously expensive as compared to the incremental cost of feeding one additional prisoner.

I'd have thought most here would hope for an 'airtight' case to be made even where the sentence is only life imprisonment, too. There will be some cases that lend themselves to being irrefutably. Unless people imagine there's a chance that there'll be some new evidence that'll exonerate the likes of Anders Breivik or there's a chance he was an unlikely victim of a Norwegian state setup or incredible Police incompetence/misconduct, that couldn't be identified in his trial?

 

[najaB]

I'd have thought most here would hope for an 'airtight' case to be made even where the sentence is only life imprisonment, too.

As long as trials and sentences are determined by juries then the standard of what qualifies as 'reasonable doubt' is going to be higher for capital cases than for non-capital.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think to me death is too final, for two reasons.

1. There are too many miscarriages of justice and in practice always will be because the legal process cannot by definition be perfect. You can't give back years in prison (though you can and should compensate financially for e.g. lost earnings), but you definitely can't bring someone back to life. Even if someone admits to a crime they may not have actually committed it, there could be another actor in the background coercing them to do so.

2. Criminals can genuinely reform. Not every criminal (even if they did something really, really bad) is necessarily going to reoffend if released 50 years later, and there are plenty of psychological methods to work on that.

I don't have an issue with "life means life" type sentences for very serious crimes, for instance murdering children, but there always has to be scope, if there's a significant material change of situation, to release them again. OK, I'm not a career criminal, but to me a year in the slammer is bad enough that I'd want to avoid it at more or less any cost, so longer sentences tend to be more about a combination of reform and protecting the public, which means you need to be able to consider progress with those things when deciding what to do.

Agreed. I was a life-long believer in capital punishment until about the age of 50. Now, I really would not like it brought back in the UK.

I did think it correct that Timothy McVeigh was executed in the USA for the Oklahoma City bombing. He showed zero remorse.

 

[jumble]

Naturally, the USA isn't the UK, but the cost of an execution far exceeds the cost of life imprisonment.

Source: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614

This is true
However in the UK people who were sentenced to death were hanged around 3 weeks after sentence.

 

[najaB]

This is true
However in the UK people who were sentenced to death were hanged around 3 weeks after sentence.

No problem with that, whatsoever...

 

[ainsworth74]

There will be some cases that lend themselves to being irrefutably. Unless people imagine there's a chance that there'll be some new evidence that'll exonerate the likes of Anders Breivik or there's a chance he was an unlikely victim of a Norwegian state setup or incredible Police incompetence/misconduct, that couldn't be identified in his trial?

Though whilst I general am opposed to the death penalty I am perhaps persuadable in situations like this. Others might be the likes of Lee Rigby killers, I don't think we're likely to discover any evidence that suggests they didn't do it.

But, with all of these more politically motivated cases (that is that the killing was politically motivated), I find myself very worried that all we'll actually achieve by executing them is making martyrs and potentially even giving them what they want. Surely it's better to lock them away in somewhere along the lines of ADX Florence?

ADX Florence is a 37-acre (15 ha) complex located at 5880 Highway 67, in an unincorporated area, with a Florence, Colorado, postal address. It is located about 100 miles (160 km) south of Denver and 40 miles (64 km) south of Colorado Springs. It is part of the Federal Correctional Complex, Florence (FCC Florence) which consists of three correctional facilities, each with a different security rating.

The majority of the facility is above ground, with the exception of a subterranean corridor that links cellblocks to the lobby. Each cell contains a desk, stool, and bed, constructed almost entirely of poured concrete, as well as a toilet that shuts off if blocked, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink lacking a potentially dangerous tap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light that can be shut off only remotely, a radio, and a television that shows recreational, educational, and religious programming.

The 4-inch-by-4-foot (10 cm × 1.2 m) windows are designed to prevent inmates from knowing their specific location within the complex. They can see only the sky and roof through them, so it is virtually impossible to plan an escape. Inmates exercise in a concrete pit resembling an empty swimming pool, also designed to prevent them from knowing their location in the facility. The pit is large enough only for a prisoner to walk ten steps in a straight line or thirty-one steps in a circle. Correctional officers generally deliver food to the cells. Inmates transferred to USP ADX Florence from other prisons may be allowed to eat in a shared dining room.

ADX Florence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Put them in a box where they can be tightly controlled and will never escape nor be able to spread their dangerous ideology again and their existence serves no function in furthering their cause.

 

[jumble]

No problem with that, whatsoever...

Just for context my position is that the risk of executing an innocent person is far too high a price for any civilised society to consider paying
What I do know is that sooner or later it will happen.

 

[Ediswan]

As long as trials and sentences are determined by juries then the standard of what qualifies as 'reasonable doubt' is going to be higher for capital cases than for non-capital.

The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" may be on its way out. (This does not affect your main point.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nable-doubt-jurors-dont-understand-means.html

It is the legal standard of proof required to find a defendant guilty in a British criminal trial but now judges have been told to drop the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' over concerns that jurors do not understand it.

Instead, official guidance for the judiciary is to tell jurors that they must be 'satisfied so that they are sure' a defendant is guilty before they can convict them.

Other sources report the same guidance.

 

[najaB]

But, with all of these more politically motivated cases (that is that the killing was politically motivated), I find myself very worried that all we'll actually achieve by executing them is making martyrs and potentially even giving them what they want. Surely it's better to lock them away in somewhere along the lines of ADX Florence?

Completely agreed. I mean, to take a non-terrorist/murderer example this image is instantly recognisable and the subject continues to be an inspiration to those of a socialist bent despite it being nearly 68 years since he was executed in Bolivia:


(Image is a stylised picture of Che Guevara)

The fact that he is forever young makes him much more powerful as a symbol than he would have been if he lived out his years and became a doddering old man.

 

[the sniper]

So if we killed Wayne Couzens, people might start wearing his face on a t-shirt...? At least we'd know who to avoid.

 

[najaB]

So if we killed Wayne Couzens, people might start wearing his face on a t-shirt...? At least we'd know who to avoid.

I wasn't aware that Wayne Couzens fell into the category of 'politically motivated killer'.

 

[the sniper]

I wasn't aware that Wayne Couzens fell into the category of 'politically motivated killer'.

At least we don't have keep him going then.

Though I'm not sure that Anders Breivik and Che Guevara are in the same category or that the former could attract the same appeal.

 

[nw1]

Just for context my position is that the risk of executing an innocent person is far too high a price for any civilised society to consider paying
What I do know is that sooner or later it will happen.

Just to clarify, the quoted text was from @najaB, not myself.

 

[najaB]

Though I'm not sure that Anders Breivik and Che Guevara are in the same category or that the former could attract the same appeal.

Anders Breivik is a hero to some. As sad as that is.

As an example, the perpetrator of the Christchurch Shootings in 2019 cited Breivik as one of his main inspirations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Perpetrator

 

[Ligeraceaster]

I would refuse to serve on a jury if the death penalty were a potential outcome.

 

[DelayRepay]

I would refuse to serve on a jury if the death penalty were a potential outcome.

I'd be in the same position. Irrespective of the evidence, I would feel unable to support a guilty verdict if I knew it could lead to execution.

I understand why some people support the death penalty, in some circumstances, but I do not believe that the state has the right to take a person's life. The only very limited exception is where not doing so would pose a material risk to another person's life - so I do not object to the police shooting an armed terrorist dead if that's the only way to save other lives, but that clearly doesn't apply to someone who's already in jail.

 

[Lucan]

experience from the USA has shown that costs up to ten times more to execute someone than it would to keep them incarcerated for life.

That is not the cost of execution, that is the cost of the USA legal system.

The main driver behind those higher costs is that when prosecutors seek the death penalty they typically seek to make the airtight case that posters here are holding as a prerequisite

The high costs and prolonged times taken in the USA legal system are not caused by trying to remove all doubt that someone is guilty. That part of the job is only a small percentage of it. The bulk of the time and cost is taken up by lawyers trying to find technical loopholes in the procedures, and out-smarting each other in a public arena to impress potential future clients. I have followed the transcripts of some USA trials in some other areas, and the USA are world leaders in this nonsense.

 

[najaB]

The bulk of the time and cost is taken up by lawyers trying to find technical loopholes in the procedures, and out-smarting each other in a public arena to impress potential future clients.

So "doing their jobs" in other words.