Reading this makes me wonder, should a man who plead guilty be executed?
back
3 comments
Should anyone be executed? Should the state have the power to kill its own citizens, outside of war?
It’s repugnant and a sign of a sick society.
>Should the state have the power to kill its own citizens, outside of war?
States killing 18 year olds who got drafted and never did a thing wrong in their short lives is more acceptable than states killing serial killers?
> States killing 18 year olds who got drafted and never did a thing wrong
You're right, I can't believe we never thought about just not drafting anyone!
We think about that all the time but drafts will be a fact of life as long as war exists and many countries have compulsory service. Even in the case of the volunteer, it is OK for a state to kill a solider who volunteered but not a serial killer?
It's not a given, actually. Drafts and levies are a recurring theme in military, but it's not a constant, and much of historic warfare was done by what we today would call "professional soldiers", without any conscripts. A lot depends on how warfare looks - conscripting, especially during wartime gets you lots of bodies, but not particularly willing ones, and they won't be eager learners. If your doctrine is what Russians are doing right now in Ukraine, sure, you will eventually need a draft then. If it's more high-tech, maybe not so much.
As far as serial killers go, that's a really bad example because there were several high-profile cases historically of people executed instead of the serial killer who actually committed the murder - for example, Aleksandr Kravchenko was executed for a murder committed by Andrei Chikatilo (who would eventually also be executed). Or how about Timothy Evans? So it's not like this is an option that comes free of innocent suffering, either (I should also note that the people who actually carry out the execution later learning that they killed an innocent is also not exactly great).
Yes, because of two reasons:
1. The state isn't sending the soldier to die, it's sending them to fight. They may die, but dying isn't the purpose. The state would very much prefer them to not die, in fact.
2. Nothing bad happens if we just don't kill the serial killer.
The "state" does not have a preference, states are conflicted by nature. Probably would not take much effort to find examples of serial killers who were not killed doing something bad, killing another inmate, killing a guard, getting out on a technicality, etc, etc, etc. Yes, if we lived in a utopia things would be perfect and you would not be ignoring the point.
I can't help but notice that your definition of "utopia" includes people never disagreeing with you.
And no, you can't justify death penalty because some people "get out on a technicality". Innocent people end up in jail on technicality too.
States exhibit preferences all the time. It'd also true that states are often conflicted but so are people.
This isnt about utopianism at all.
And then add euthanasia to the mix. I think euthanasia should be legal. It comes from my own battles with MS and my immobility issues. If I get paralyzed, I would rather choose euthanasia, personally.
It's certainly a weird world where we kill those who want to stay alive, and find every excuse to stop those who want to die from doing so.
That is incorrect. The right answer is absolutely if there is no uncertainty and then realizing there has never been a murder in all recorded history where the standard of no uncertainty is met to the level required on the timeline it takes to convict someone and to ban it.
Should humans kill each other?
> it's repugnant and a sign of a sick society
So, the one we all live in (and have always lived in)
The entire Council of Europe, i.e., until also recently including also Russia, have agreed to abolish the death penalty during peacetime, with this being mostly implemented in practice.
Yes. I am for public and prominent capital punishment of heinous crimes.
Bernie Madoff should have hung on Wall Street. Dylan Roof should have hung in front of the state capital building.
It is not repugnant, it is a signal of what behavior will and will not be tolerated.
We don't have to live in a society with rampant crime. We choose it.
How many innocent people is it okay to put to death? You'll note that I'm not saying that either of the examples that you gave are innocent people, but innocent people are put to death, so: how many?
This isn't a trick question. It's not okay to say, well, ideally there should be none. I'm asking right now since you think we should be hanging people in the public square.
The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death. So there's no bright line for anything that we can point to and say that's how you do it.
It is also not okay to say that they exhausted all avenues of the justice system available to them and unfortunately it didn't work and them's the breaks kid.
So how many innocent people is it okay to put to death?
> The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death.
Unfortunately, the governments and law enforcement community's answer to this problem will not be "may be we need to reconsider our laws". It will most likely be "then let's make sure we have more information to determine the truth i.e. more surveillance".
I know, were that it weren't necessary. Adam Carolla said there should be a way to make a lie detector where if you fail it 3 times or 10 times or whatever, that's it, jail. I just pulled a sample from my transcripts, from 2003:
https://nextcloud.projectftm.com/index.php/s/CarollaLieDetec...
How many innocent people is it okay to put into prison?
You cannot give years back to an innocent prisoner any more than you can give life back to an innocent executee.
There is a cost to any action, including inaction. There is a cost to not executing justice (which is what capital punishment is, in the case of the guilty: justice); there is a cost in doing injustice.
An innocent prisoner years later can at least be compensated monetarily and try to get a life. Sure, it's not perfect, but at least it's something. A corpse is pretty final, though, and there's no recourse.
It is not ok to put any innocent people to death and it is also not ok to live in an unsafe society.
I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
You don't need to and shouldn't apply it to all murders.
Furthermore, anyone guilty of rape should be castrated
> It is not ok to put any innocent people to death
> I believe that the death penalty should be applied with extreme prejudice for the most serious of crimes.
I’d recommend you re-read their comment and then try to reconcile these statements. In particular, pay special attention to this part:
> The death penalty necessarily means in our imperfect information world that innocent people will be put to death.
"It's not ok" is a value judgement. I am not implying that a death penalty means bad things never happen. I support death penalty because I value an orderly and safe society more.
In the form I would accept, it would be used on people convicted of heinous crimes, some of which will be innocent, with the effect that fewer heinous crimes occur.
'Pleaing guilt' means 'taking the blame'. It is not a proof of guilt.
So the answer to your question should be: no.
In general, when will the US stop considering acceptable that... you cannot lie to the police, but the police can lie to you?
When will everyone believe that making someone take the blame in exchange for a shorter time in jail is beneficial to society at large... when the real perpetrator walks away unscathed, and a innocent is jailed for something he didn't even commit?
I'd say the main thing is police should show how all leads have been followed, the investigation followed a logical and evidence based approach and all evidence handed to defence.
You can lie to the police, no? It is not a crime per se.
In, like, an interview situation, no, you won't get an additional charge. I am not a lawyer but. It is a crime to lie to federal agents, specifically the FBI. I'm not sure about the rest. And if you do light of the police, it'll be held against you. But even if you don't lie to the police, it'll be held against you. So, you know, just don't say anything. Except "lawyer, please."
Pleading guilty has nothing to do with remorse or repentance. It's a legal thing. It is a strategic choice.
> It is a strategic choice.
If a person did not commit a crime and if their strategic best choice is pleading guilty for the crime that has x% probability of receiving death penalty, it says something about the whole process.
Yes that scenario sucks. Death penalty itself should be trial only with a super high standard of evidence.
I think I am against it in general. I am undecided.
What do executions have to do with remorse or repentance?