The prisons are full

I'm struggling to think of an instance in history when it has been done "right". You either have a case where its cheap, quick, violates human rights and kills off a whole lot of innocent people or you get something like the US where the whole process ends up costing the penal system more than it would to keep the guy in prison for life.

I must be interpreting this incorrectly or something - surely prevention is preferable to punishment, afterall an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.


@Rotku - love the story about the Amish shooting. There was a murder in my city about 10 years ago where a junkie called a doctor to his house and killed him for his morphine. The wife of the doctor forgave the junkie, and although I didn't really think about it at the time, I really think this kind of forgiveness is truly commendable. Were I to be murdered, no matter the circumstances, the last thing I would wish on my murderer would be the death penalty. In a perfect world I'd like them to at least try to redeem themselves; give 1/2 their wealth to the poor, donate blood each fortnight and help the local shelter package goods for the needy. Granted the chance of that happening is close to zero, but more than anything else I'd like some good to come out of the situation (even if they're forced to do good things).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Gnarfflinger, but doesn't your religion put importance on forgiveness and probably also mention somewhere that it's gods prerogative to judge, let alone to take life? I could be completely wrong here, as I don't really know much about your faith.

 

Are criminals really that stupid or arrogant? You commit the crime, of course you'll do the time...

I'd be okay with that. But I would also favour taking that decision out of their hands for some of the worst offenders.

Yes, prevention is prefered, but we are talking where prevention has failed. Further, if you take out the eye for an eye, then the only ones with eyes will be those that gouge them from innocent people. Without true justice, there is no force behind the law, meaning that we are not as free as people claim we are. Further, if we do need the eye for an eye justice, should not the state assume the responsibility for removing the second eye?

Forgiveness is highly important, but it does not mean letting the offender escape justice. If it is justice that a murderer die for his crime, then so be it. Forgiving the murderer must not change that. Further, our faith recognizes the need for mortals to judge according to the law. If the state grants them the right to execute a murderer, then so be it. We have the right to lobby the state on whether we believe this should be the case or not, but ultimately, recognize the decision of the state. Interestingly enough, early prophets SUPPORTED Capital Punishment.

Our scriptures support this too. D&C 42:19

Verse 79 goes on to say:

Again, this assumes that the murderer is truly guilty of the murder in question. Surely we would not want to see an innocent man executed for a murder he did not commit, but we also would not wish a guilty man be denied his death out of such fear. Denying him that death makes it worse for the guilty at the last day.

 

I guess we have a fundamental difference on what benefits a society. I see no benefit to society in focussing on the rights of a cold-blooded killer and ignoring his victims. That to me indicates a sick society. To use an image that has been used countless times before, when there is something truly disgusting in a body (like a malignant tumor) sometimes the best thing to do is cut that thing out.

I don't trust the present society to keep truly dangerous killers locked away forever. Sooner or later they get released, or escape, or whatever. Some of them kill other prisoners, knowing that there will be no further consequence -- they're already locked up, right? The only way to be sure they will never reoffend and to ensure that the families get the message that their lost loved one was valued by society is to kill the killer.

Please note that I advocate this sort of thing only in truly heinous circumstances. I'm not talking about manslaughter or such things, but first degree murder -- preplanned, cold blooded murder, usually coupled with other viciousness (see my earlier posts for my poster boy for appropriate execuation, Canada's Paul Bernardo.) Of course, one day my brother in law might push me over the edge and in a fit of rage I'll lose it and kill him with a salad fork. For a crime like that of course a 30 year prison term is more appropriate, and I think that applies to everyone, not just me. But if I lay in wait for him and shoot him down, or capture and torture him before I feed his body to the dogs, then I should be killed, because that is aggravated, horrendous behaviour that society cannot countenance.

 

No, the death sentence is definitely appropriate in that circumstance, due to the atrocious choice of cutlery. As we all learned in etiquette school, the correct utensil for killing your brother-in-law is the dinner fork; salad forks are for mothers-in-law.

 

I don't consider putting someone in jail for life "ignoring" the victims. The criminal is punished, and justice has been done. No matter what else we do, it won't bring back the crime. It might make them feel better, for a short while. But for all the talk about the perpetrator's family not mattering as much, I don't find it fair if it has to go through losing a member simply for that.

I could see death punishment for truly heinous cases - something like Jack the Ripper or that Paul Bernardo guy - but where do we draw the line? Sure, there are murder convicts who go out and kill more. Are they more than the murder convicts that do their time and go out to lead fairly decent lives? The media doesn't care about them - they're not newsworthy. Politicians don't bother about them - they don't do bombastic things that they can orate about. But they matter, at least enough that they shouldn't be taken for granted.

Plus, there is also another thing that I think about, at least on an instinctive level: capital punishment is just another tool in the hands of the state system. If the state is led by tyrants, it can be - and has been - abused. A safeguard against it might just last for one law, but it's a line that has to be crossed and that might arouse protests before a state fully turns authoritarian. It's not a very good safeguard, I admit, but it's there. This may seem like a crock of .... to someone born and raised in the US, which has had the death penalty since its inception and is an example for democracy. On the other hand, if you look at the history of authoritarian regimes in Europe and Asia, I think it helps to make capital punishment even a bit harder to reach. As the poem goes, first they came for the communists... - and as I've said before, it's easier to put a guy out of a cell than to bring him back to life.

 

Shaman, there's no doubt in my mind that the death penalty can be abused -- anyone who's studied history in even the most cursory sense can see that. But that possibility should not preclude its use in cases that desperately cry out for it. Multiple murders, multiple rapes, clearly established patterns of horrible and callous behaviour that results in the loss of life of innocent people . . . these are things that I believe merit death. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of killing people for petty reasons or without due process.

The other thing is that there must be safeguards in place to ensure fairness -- those safeguards are lacking in a lot of cases. The solution is to put those safeguards in place, not just throw up our hands and say "oh, he killed and devoured 4 people, but if we kill him it'll make his family sad. We'll just lock him up for a while and if he does it again, well, oops!" That shows a lack of respect for decent people everywhere who want to live their lives free from fear.

But, going back to the original thrust of this thread, what do we do since the prisons are full? Too many people oppose the death penalty to make it a valid option in a democracy, and as was stated earlier, since there are few capital crimes it would not make a significant enough dent in the prison population. How do we punish criminals, protect the general populace and not bankrupt ourselves?

Step one is to let the free hand of the marketplace get involved. Allow private companies to run the prisons. The government will inspect the prisons to ensure compliance with human rights legislation. Put capitalists in charge and watch prices drop (with any luck, that is -- MANY safeguards need to be in place to make this work.

Step two is to develop a reasonable definition of rights. A color TV is not a right. Neither is delicious food. I've been on the Slimfast diet -- if they gave three of those bars (or similar fare) per day to the prisoners, it'd be cheaper than a cafeteria, the prisoners would get their daily recommended allotment of nutrients, and the prisoners would certainly never want to go back there!

Too many luxuries have been redefined as rights by snake-bellied defense lawyers. Clean up those definitions and the relaxed atmosphere that results from mollycoddling prisoners and we'll save money that can be spent of keeping the truly dangerous offenders behind bars.

Step three is realistic thinking about who needs to be behind bars. I heard a report here in Alberta that said that 75% of the crime here in AB is committed by 15% of the criminals. We need to target those criminals and get them off the street and away from decent people. Punish the minor criminals with house arrest (ankle bracelets!), heavy fines, and the removal of priviledges like drivers licences, passports, ability to register business names, etc.

 

No, it is not done. The victim is dead by the criminal's hand. The Criminal is alive. The punishment is less than the crime.

If I go out and commit a crime worthy of incarceration, yes, my family is deprived of my company, and thus suffers, but it is MY OWN FAULT that they suffer, not the fault of the system. If I were in a state that allowed the death penalty, and I committed a capital offence, then my death would also be my own fault, and thus the suffering of my family also falls on MY head. If you keep going, you'll rail against any form of punishment at all, then where is the freedom?

There is a thing called juris prudence. This gives the judge that authority. This assumes that such judges have been highly qualified, and have access to the information required to make such decisions.

If a judges did not believe they deserve to die for their crime, and they do get out, then that is juris prudence at work. If they don't offend again, then that's good. Honestly, I doubt they'd want that kind of media attention anyway...

Of course it can be under a tyurant. But in a democracy, that is held in check, adn it goes back to the concept of juris prudence--that a duly qualified judge is wise enough to make such decisions on behalf of the state.

There's a quote from Shakespeare that I don't think I could get away with here that might be appropriate, but well said. Why should a prisoner live better than a law abiding person who can't work for what ever reason (Disability or simply poor economic conditions)? That's a crock of in my opinion...

But how do we give teeth to certain offenses without incarceration?

That's a good point, but if it's only 15%, then why would so much there be over-crowding?

 

Because there's still the other 25% of crime to be accounted for

Gnarf, what do you believe the point of capital punishment is? Is it an act of revenge, to make the victims family feel good? Or is it a means to protect society from the criminal? Or maybe an act of deterrent, to lessen the amount of future crime? Or possible it's simply because it's 'cheaper'? I can't think of any other possible reasons for it, but if I have missed any, please let me know.

To address one at a time:
(1) Deterrent:

This seems to be something that you have repeated numerous times now; the idea that capital punishment is more humane than life imprisonment. Now, if imprisonment is such a horrible thing, worse than capital punishment, logically following that through, if considered that by a vast proportion of a population, wouldn't it a far greater reason not to commit a crime? If that is the case, then surely the reason to keep the death penalty in place is out the window.

(2) Costs:
If you take a look here you'll find an interesting report produced the by Washinton STate Bar Association (which I hope isn't a very baised source) in 2006, on the issue of the death penalty. To sum up the costs, the report found that it costs roughly $470,000 inadditional costs over the cost of trying the same case without the death penalty; costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel; the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases; and personal restraint petitions cost an additional $137,000. That's just for the trail alone.

TO give you a better idea, an article in the LA Times from 2005 concluded the following:

• "According to state and federal records obtained by The Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life," excluding all the trails, appeals etc.
• "on a per-execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each life taken at state hands"
• "Prison records show that California death row inmates are far more likely to die of natural causes than they are at the hands of the executioner."
• That it costs "$90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row" than in a normal, high security cell.
• that the costs would be reduced heavily if a larger margin of error was excepted. "We don't turn them [executions] out the way a lot of Southern states do,"
  California Chief Justice Ronald M. George said in an interview. "The virtue of our system is also its vice. We go to such lengths to minimize the possibility of error, and we've built in a lot of delay."

So, in the end, it simply comes down to a fact that if you want to be dead sure that you've got the right bugger, you're going to end up paying for it.

To sum up the costs, a quote from Michael Laurence, who according to the above mentioned LA Times article is one of the states leading capital defence lawyers:

"What if just a small portion of the money we spent on these cases went for the prevention of child abuse? From my experience, this would have done far more to prevent murders than anything we have done with capital punishment."

(3) Protection:
Here I'm going to point you back to my quote by the previous Pope - I won't repeat it again, to save space, but to sum up he said that capital punishment is pointless in a world where we can safely keep people in prison. Assuming this is a reason for capital punishment, the only time you would kill a criminal is if you do not feel that the prison systems are capable of containing the murderer. Correct? But then in that case, surely it is more that we should be looking at where the prison system fails, and improving that, than simply killing more people?

(4) Revenge:
I'm not even going to address this. If this is your sole reason (and assuming there's no major fault in my above argument, it is), then may want to stop and think about how morally correct revenge is as a reason for taking someones life.

 

Here is an Update

 

All the legal and scientific sophistry can't change the fact that what the law Snook posted says, in effect, is that dependency is an excuse for for crime. That's disgusting. However, . . .

If the prisons are so crowded, I'd rather see a thief walk than a rapist or murderer. But that's a contrived situation. Far better to build better prisons, while the people are in prison offer them / force them into rehabilitation programs, cut down on luxuries for prisoners and stop listening to specious, ridiculous lawsuits and claims by criminals that their "rights" have been violated. An injection of common sense into the way we deal with prisoners would be an excellent move.

As for Rotku's statements, my contention is that the bloated, offender biased system that makes it more expensive to execute a criminal than to incarcerate him for life is what needs to be fixed. A common sense, fair system would solve that problem right quick, and the murderer would never, ever kill again. Your quote of the Pope's was excellent, and I agree that in a society where we kept dangerous offenders locked away forever capital punishment's necessity would drop, but we in this society do not keep them forever. We keep them for 20 years or so and let them out on good behaviour, and they often re-offend. That's not justice for the victims or their families. When a life sentence means a lifetime in prison, I'll be less vocal in my support for capital punishment.

 

Maybe not in Canada, but in the U.S. life usually does mean life, especially in the case of premeditated (1st degree) murder. Here, if you're convicted of premeditated murder there are three possible sentences: (1) Life with the possibility of parole (no guarantee), (2) Life without the possibility of parole, and (3) death penalty. Of those three, option 2 is by far the most common, although there is much variability from state to state. Texas may go for option 3 more than option 2, whereas in my state of Maryland, you can't be executed unless you commit multiple murders, so for a single murder you can't get more that option 2.

 

Justice. The victim is DEAD. No civil suit launched by the deceased can restore his life, nor can any degree of therapy return the victim to the living. Why should society accept anything less than the same for the criminal that caused this?

After reading what LKD has posted, I realize now that life imprisonment is in fact a life long tea party. Makes me sick that such criminals have MORE rights than those of us who are law abiding citizens. No wonder the prisons are overcrowded...

Two lawyers instead of one, and the requirement of special credentials of these lawyers will drive up costs. Further, there is usually more evidence to produce, and jury selection will mean defence lawyers will try to put people opposed to the Death penalty on the jury. This prolongs the case, thus further increasing trial costs. This I can live with, as we need to see to the rights of the accused (as they have not yet been proven guilty). As Drew pointed out a couple pages back, in cases where the death penalty is imposed, they are going to exhaust every possible appeal in order to escape the sentence--likely because they KNOW what's likely coming in the afterlife. As for restraint petitions, again, it's mostly lawyer bills. Again, if the killer is truly guilty and knows it, this could be either an attempt to delay that horrific afterlife that he expects, or an attempt to screw with the state that wants him dead, by driving up costs. This needs to be there to protect the accused, and make sure there is a fair sentence, but how much is too much? This expense becomes necessary due to the nature of the crime.

Would these changes streamline the process and reduce the expense of capital trials to make them more cost effective?

Can that not be a counterpoint to your increased cost arguement? If it's the lobbyists that are driving up the cost of something they don't like, then how valid is their arguement?

This is something that needs to be looked at more closely. Why should they get a private cell? In the General populace, they are two to a cell, so why give extra priveleges to the worst of criminals? This would place the costs of extra security over a greater number of inmates, thus reducing the cost per inmate.

AS investigative techniques and training of those handling capital cases improve, the delay time can be reduces, thus reducing costs. Granted, thus may require paying such lawyers a bit more to entice them into this line of work, but speeding up the process would, in the long run, reduce the cost of execution. It's not an express line to the electric chair, but it would speed the process along, thus making it more humane than sitting in a cage for 20 years waiting to die...

Likewise, I have quoted my theological disagreement with this. As a Mormon, I am not subject to the Vatican. I can freely suggest that the Pope missed the point on that. Part of repentance is serving a fair sentence, and in the case of the deliberate and/or brutal murder, that fair sentence is to die for your crime.

It is not, and thus the quality of the penal system is not an issue.

AS tempting as revenge is, it is just that--a temptation. Where it says an eye for an eye, it ends with "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." If the state will insist on criminalizing a behaviour, then it takes on the responsibility to hand down appropriate sentences. The Lord's example suggests that the death penalty, duly processed, is a fair and equitable sentence for the crime of murder. It is not revenge, but justice. The State handles justice to help the family of the victim reduce the desire for vengeance.

Snook: Your article suggests that which has come up in this discussion before--alternatives to incarceration. It may actually be a good idea to have secure rehab facilities, where time there counts as time served and thus take stress off the prison system. Then those in the throes of addiction can receive the help that may rehabilitate them to productive members of society.

But first, would these number comprise such a number that the system is over-taxed? I don't think so. Further, they would likely have lower sentences, thus a higher prisoner turnover. If they go on to lead normal lives and stay out of trouble, then they are no longer part of the problem.

You are right, but if there is a way to have them serve their time and get free of these addictions, then that would work towards the solution...

I've been thinking of "the Leviathan", but Hobbes. Basically, the Leviathan protects us as long as we abide it's rules. WE break the rules, our protection is not guaranteed. In this case, citizens have the right to due process, but once proven guilty, they have the right to serve their sentence fairly. This does not mean a better standard of living than law abiding folks, but it may include training for after their sentence is over so that they may again contribute to society. This, of course, only applies to non capital offences.

Exactly. That is not justice for the victim's family, or for the victim themself. Further, it shows that society is really not interested in punishing criminals. With no punishment, freedom falls soon after.

AFI: Again, what is the point of the first? Why lock someone in prison if they will never leave? Why not simply execute them?

 

The act of capital punishment is one that should be subject to strict laws and procedures -- on that I am in agreement with its opponents. There should be a lot of thought and oversight and consideration before the state inflicts the ultimate penalty on an offender. But that level of oversight should not take 20 years to achieve any more than it should be done in a one week period. Both are unreasonable.

Which leads me to the individual cells issue -- if you put certain offenders in with each other, one of them may decide to kill another. Now while the base, animal part of my brain says "good on 'em!" the logical part of my brain says that that situation is unacceptable. The State should be the one to do its own dirty work, and until the State is sure that capital punishment is the best course for an offender, the State has the responsibility to secure the safety of the criminal (notice I said safety, not luxurious comfort.) A 5x5 cell with a thin mattress, a warm blanket, a toilet and a shower ensures that the prisoner is not suffering undue privation while he is imprisoned. I have no problem with protecting the life of a prisoner while the legal process that ensures justice is done is being enacted.

 

We need a new Australia. Isn't there an island someplace where we all just dump our prisoners and see what happens. It would probably get great ratings.

 

LKD, I can agree with both those statements (mostly).

Graff, do you really believe what you are saying? Your argument seems to flip flop (to steal a word the media so love) as much as a seesaw in a childnrens playground.

Ah, but then surely the problem once again lies with the prison system, as opposed to the means of justice? I completely agree that prison life shouldn't be easy - however, I think you are making it out to be a lot easier than it sounds. Have you ever been in a prison before (whether it be visiting or detained)? I know here, they certainly do not have more rights than a common citizen - espcially high security prisons where these people you'd like to see killed tend to end up. But yes, life should be harder, but that comes down to a fault in the prison system, which should be fixed.
And thus, the quality of the prison system IS an issue.

Heh, this is curious statement. "OMG! It's Catholic! It must be wrong!" You know, as an athesist I am not subject to the vatican either. Doesn't mean they aren't clever thoughts

Regarding the costs of the prisons. I hope you understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. What I quoted from the paper were facts (and if the paper is doing it's jobs properly, it's going to double source those facts). What you quoted, was the opinion of a politican. A politican. So no, it's not a counterpoint to my argument. Just like Chinesse government saying civil rights breeches aren't happening isn't a counterpoint to the facts.

Infact, if we manage to follow through with what you, LDK and I seem to agree on, that prisoners have too much luxuries, then the gap between the costs of life imprisonment and capital punishment is bound to increase even more.

Ah, but doesn't this come back to my, so far unanswered, question as to what advantages there are of killing the person vs life imprisonment.

Just to finish with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."

 

You will note the acknowledgement of LKD's post on what prisoners get. Also, It's not about the ability to keep them locked up here.

Ah, no. Earlier in this thread, I quoted a couple verses from the Doctrine and Covenents (a Mormon book of scripture) that advocate Capital punishment as handed down by the state. This contradicts the statement from the Pope opposing it in a theological manner. There are many issues where the Mormons and Catholics aren't that far appart...

Facts including the fact that there is too much of a backlog of capital cases waiting due process because there is not enough resources to deal with them. Bu increasing the number of attourneys that can deal with this, that will clear this backlog in a timely manner, thus reducing the time that someone spends in prison.

As to the Luxuries in prison, that is for dealing with non capital offenders.

That is because it is not about advantage, but making the offender pay a fair price for the grievoud crime he has committed. You talk about utility, I talk about justice.

Only if half the population goes around gouging the eyes out of the other half. If you take that out, then people of such desires would be free to gouge the eyes out of anyone they felt the need to gouge the eyes out of with true impunity. Ignoring or impairing the State's responsibility to enact justice is a dangerous situation, one that may lead us to feel trapped at the whim of others.

 

Gnarff,

You said earlier that capital punishment is the "humane" thing as opposed to life in imprisonment, but also that getting life is not a severe enough punishment. Since the severity of the sentence is so important for getting justice done, why go for the humane?

Is a quick lethal injection in proportion to the victim's suffering? If the punishment should fit the crime, why not sentence rapists to getting raped? I'm sure we could find plenty of volunteers in prisons to carry out this kind of sentence. The victim's family could come and watch and see justice being done for good measure.

 

It is both inhumane, but unjust.

Inhumane that you lock someone away for the rest of their life and treated as less than human, but the animal they are--wait, LKD said that they are living better than some law abiding citizens. Unjust that the person they kill is dead, and thus they should be dead too as a matter of justice. Capital punishment accomplishes both ends in that they have a fixed end and that they die--like their victim.

By placing that responsibility in the hands of the state, some concessions need to be made.

And I don't feel sympathy for rapists in that situation...