Trump reinstates death penalty for federal crimes
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
If we want to explore the moral aspects of this, how moral is it to imprison someone for the rest of their life?
What standard of care should they receive in prison? Is it moral to deny them things like Playstations, TVs, enjoyable meals, education, work, recreation, sex, yadda yadda. Is it moral to deny them any prospect of a normal life and to do the things people on the outside world can do. Is life in prison not also revenge, unless we provide them with sufficient stimulus to be "happy" or "fulfilled"?
If it is punishment and therefore happiness is not a factor, is this not revenge? When is punishment not revenge? Does punishment ever aid/enable rehabilitation?
If this is not punishment but just intended to achieve segregation away from polite society, then shouldn't you believe they have the right to happiness and fulfilment?
Where do you weave the moral thread in this complex web of criteria and objectives?
Personally, I don't think death is ultimately about revenge. In a world where guilt can ever be clearly established, it offers a solution that is quite ethical to all parties involved.
e: expanding on this a bit more, people have already said that punishment does not prevent crime as criminals do not consider the punishment when deciding to commit the crime.
Therefore punishment can only serve the purpose of revenge if you accept that argument.
Therefore if you take away any freedom or opportunity from "segregated" criminals (read incarcerated) then you are punishing them purely for revenge.
Can't argue it both ways.
Last edited:
No, like I said, justice. But punishment isn’t decided by the victims, and that’s right.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2016
- Posts
- 4,280
- Location
- Third Earth
Great post. Completely agree.
Well there is an inherent punishment factor as a result of being locked away but one of the most useful aspects of prison is that a violent person or a repeat offender is shut away from the rest of society. As for allowing things like TVs etc.. into cells, access to education - surely that should be linked with them showing they can be trusted to behave etc.. it ought to perhaps be as much an incentive and is down to them and their behaviour inside.
Likewise wearing a tag might be seen as a form of punishment, but it is also a means of controlling/limiting the behaviour of someone who needs to demonstrate they're capable of sticking to some simple conditions and at least for the duration of the tag they're less likely to cause issues at night in their local area.
The point of my post was that it's not as simple as some people have said, "Death is about revenge; imprisonment is about protecting society."
Life in a zero/low stimulus environment would arguably be revenge, and a lot less humane than death.
The details are important. Anyone talking about wanting people to "rot in jail" is clearly desirous of revenge.
And, believe it or not, some of us believe that death is not necessary about revenge at all.
Without appeals? 150 innocent people have been exonorated from death row since the 70s in the US, should they have been shot?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
It will never pass in Parliament so it won't happen.
Not a fan of the death penalty. How many people have been put to death only for it to later turn out they were innocent. If the answer is more than zero then it isn't worth the risk. In the UK the judges of the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 cases said they'd have used the death penally if it had been available. Those convictions were later overturned.
It takes quite a long time from someone being sentences to actually being executed though. Some have been on death row for 20+ years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,585
And that's the kicker isn't it. It's a different thing when it is family or friend wrongly accused and sentenced to death...
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
That doesn't mean innocent people aren't executed. A quick google search will show several cases in the last 30 years of people being executed that have later had their convictions called into question. Some where someone else has been found to have actually committed the crime. How is the State any better than the people it kills when it kills a person who is innocent.
Oh no.
But the appeal process is way to long. In fact prisoners layers make it longer so the public forget about that case.
But if they 100% did it. They should have 3 days to say goodbye and then shot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,953
Not much that man has done that I agree with but am with him on this. Ethically you can argue you should never sanction killing someone however so long as it is beyond ANY doubt then imo it is a practical issue. Those people can never be release and so is just too expensive to keep them.... Not to mention do you really want people like that (lost causes) locked up with people who can possibly be redeemed......
That said however I do think there needs to be extra layer of protection after the normal jury process.,.... Without any of the lawyer games and where a professional panel review ALL evidence before a sentence of death is passed..... Combined with massive charges levied against any corruption used to force a guilty plea on possible death case.
IME (albeit limited) cases which are later quashed it is clear from the outset that there were massive questionmarks over the case at the time but a lackluster defence and over zealous prosecutor have won a weak case. I hate the way the whole system is geared towards winning rather than presenting the truth...... But nothing will change that hence my view that an extra layer without the BS is needed before passing death sentence.
Once done however it needs to be swift
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,397
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
How times change in 5 years on here.
5 years ago I had so many people having a go at me I eventually changed my stance on the death penalty and favored hard labor for life with no TVs or Playstations.
It now seems I can go back to the death penalty without posters having a go at me.
5 years ago I had so many people having a go at me I eventually changed my stance on the death penalty and favored hard labor for life with no TVs or Playstations.
It now seems I can go back to the death penalty without posters having a go at me.