It costs $76,678.16 yearly to keep one category A man in prison in the UK (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/563326/costs-per-place-cost-per-prisoner-2015-16.pdf).
You can see how over a lifetime that begins to add up. Because these individuals are so dangerous they are often not employed in prison industry, making them a net loss to the system.
It costs $49,380 yearly to keep a man who committed equivalent crimes on death row in Kansas, America- and they are typically removed quicker. You can see how that would be more efficient (Considering The Death Penalty).
The real costs in the American system that are often harped about by people against the death row, and again, I can see their points, is that a significant amount of money is spent in court fees through the appeals process. Naturally because we want to get it right when someone has committed a crime that seems to merit death.
The 4% of innocents who are executed is horrifying. Genuinely. But I believe that with the appropriate safeguards in place (no one is arguing that the American system isn't broken), such as there being an ironclad, conclusive case, far beyond doubt (which is something the UK system is known for being quite good at) that a case could be made, on fiscal terms, for bringing the penalty back for cases such as this.
As for the fairness doctrine, I agree nominally with your point, but we have to weigh up whether these advantages that aren't immediately apparent are worth the money which could go toward victim support, the NHS etc etc (oh dear, should I put that on the side of a bus? ha)... not to mention the value of the peace of mind that would come to the survivors of these crimes knowing that the person who did a horrible thing to them could never do it again, nor to anyone else.
I'm European and familiar with how European prisons etc operate. Hence why I brought them up. They are seen to be more successful because of the difference in how recidivism rates are defined (see here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278714801_A_Systematic_Review_of_Criminal_Recidivism_Rates_Worldwide_Current_Difficulties_and_Recommendations_for_Best_Practice). Plus for the worst crimes, the kind of crimes that would have you put on death row, they do not often rehabilitate the perpetrators of these crimes effectively.
I used that 'up to murders of passion' as a potential example. I would hope people a lot smarter than myself would develop the system that would determine whether a person should be given the death penalty.
I understand you have a problem with your government. Many people do. However, again, with the correct legal framework in place, I believe a workable system could be established to remove human waste.
I also hope you understand that I am dealing with this from a purely intellectual point of view, not because 'I like the revenge'. The taking of a human life is a very serious matter, yet I believe if that life has committed unspeakable crimes against humanity (such as raping a defenseless baby for example) then the society would likelier be a better place without that person in it. Because it would be a societal burden (in numerous ways, not just fiscally) to house and feed that dangerous person, it ergo makes sense to kill that person for their crimes.
Now we're getting even more philosophical. What would you say makes us human? How can you define the humanity within us? What makes us human is our ability to emphasize with others, our ability to care for another and to understand what would cause them harm. I'd say it's fairly evident that the person who did this did it with no regard to his victim, nor the consequences it will likely have for them for the rest of their life. But, of course, 'that's just like my opinion man'.
I agree that right shouldn't be thrown away just because we're subjectively disgusted by them. But I do believe that in circumstances such as this, protocols and potential sentences such as the death penalty should be in place that would obviously be highly different to normal legal cases.
You mention empathy as a function of humanity, so should we throw away our humanity in the process of defending it?
So's fucking a two week old.
It's an uncomfortable and complicated topic for sure, but i believe that even people like the man in the article are still more use to society as a whole if kept alive, at least in the long run. Even people that are "unfixable" can contribute to research so one day they and people like them can be fixable, and further incidents like this could be prevented. Of course, in the US you're probably going to have the fix the prison system as a whole before that happens, but still.
It may not be what they deserve, but i never got why that was such a big deal. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
No, I would define empathy *as* our humanity, not as a function- without it, we're nothing but cruel, calculating meat-bags. I would argue that reinstating the death penalty wouldn't be 'throwing away' our humanity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all for wanton killing people in misguided acts of revenge, but sometimes we have to do things which may seem to compromise our ethics and values in order to protect those very same values. Simply put, we aren't throwing away our humanity by ridding the world of child rapists: we're protecting it.
Ridding the world of a child rapist would be incarceration or rehabilitation. Execution is just adding a murderer. If the protection of values includes the betrayal of those values then there's no point.
Disgusting all around. Regardless of what happens to the piece of shit that decided to use a baby to satisfy their sexual needs I sincerely hope he hasn't caused permanent damage to that kid or caused harm that will affect their sexual ability two decades from now.
looks like easy way out to me.
he should live with the horror of his actions and be punished.
and have the taxpayers pay for them staying in prison for life?
Doesn't even deserve that
What the fuck do you mean his name cant be reported
i'd pay for him to be punished. end of.
if he was happy to die and ready, you'd be doing him a favour of ending his life quickly without any repurcussions.
death is not the "ultimate penalty", we all have to face it.
If there's anything that could be done to identify the victim through a name, it cannot be published.
So if it was a relative for example, you won't get it, since it puts a victim at risk of identification
If someone is fucked up enough to have done something like this, do you really think they'll feel remorse like a normal human would? I reckon its a 70% chance the guy is psychopathic.
No, that is putting them somewhere different in the world. Even there they are still a problem. The victim has to suffer with knowing they are still alive, hell, in modern courts sytems they can probably even get paroled (usually because the system decide they've spent enough money on housing them for 25-30 years). It makes fiscal and moral sense to kill the people who commit the worst crimes.
As for the last part of your statement I also disagree but then I never expected us to agree or persuade each other the other is right. Funnily enough a lot of Facepunchers would probably disagree with that part, as I remember there being quite the debate about whether we should allow the alt-right a platform here. I believe the argument used was 'to protect free speech we need to silence people spreading hate speech'. I imagine you would disagree with those other FPers given your comment, but it does show that there is a logical basis for protecting values by occasionally violating them.
I wish I had a bullet for every monster that touches a kid.
Nah death penalty is weak. Skin the dude alive and hang him from his nuts.
People seriously need to drop this word in discussions about criminal punishments. Stop making it about revenge. It should always be about what gets the job done best and most effectively. What best helps prevent future cases? What is cheapest? Are there additional concerns such as what happens if the person was wrongfully convicted? I know you address the expenses, peace of mind for victims, effectiveness measured by recidivism, etc., and those are good points. But just don't trick yourself into thinking that "he deserves to die" isn't coming from a desire for revenge. Also, you don't get to just define humanity as empathy. Otherwise who gets to be human could get almost arbitrary because while you draw the line at newborn rape, others might say a robber has no empathy. At the very least, you need a much more specific definition that leaves no room for interpretation.
thats not the point.
i want punishment, and a quick, dignified painless death is not good enough. in fact it's a privelage. look at those who have health issues preventing them to live life normally, they don't even have the choice to die without legal issues.
Who's to say it would be painless? The cocktail of drugs cost upwards of $100 to buy. Buy 3 bullets and use a firing squad.
On an unrelated note, I feel those with health issues should be allowed to die if they wish.
I genuinely feel no desire for revenge, as stated above, and I feel it strange why people keep accusing me of that. I simply want a framework in place to remove from existence people with no empathy, demonstrated by their willingness to engage in depraved crimes such as this one.
The death penalty would obviously be off the table for a petty criminal: my name isn't Draco. Plus I've said above I would want a system that leaves no room for interpretation either- developed by a smarter men than I. I wouldn't dare to write how such a system would look because I know my capabilities and I know I wouldn't make a robust enough system.
It simply makes sense in my opinion- I've expressed the reasons why I think it should be reinstated. You can pick at my langauge all day if you wish, making me seem thirsty for blood or wanting petty revenge, but my opinion will not be changed.
why dont u think realistically. that is not going to happen any time soon in the western world.
Your first few posts sounded like punishment should be based on what he 'deserves' rather than what's effective, such as when you gave no other reasons but simply stated that criminals shouldn't be comfortable and don't deserve 'pleasant treatment'. But I'll take your word for it; others don't clarify their views as well as you have here in other posts. Certainly many people do simply have a tendency to think about legal punishment as a way to get revenge, and I feel it should be refuted every time.
Also, I didn't mean that you should be able to detail the system, but you should be able to define exactly what you mean by empathy being humanity if you're going to use it as an argument to support the death penalty. Do you think anyone diagnosed with psychopathy are not human? What about rapists who rape adults? Murderers? Terrorists? How exactly are you determining who gets to be human and who doesn't, and how do you conclude that petty criminals don't also fall under no empathy non-humans? My point is just that if we did have a system with death penalty that used this "people without empathy aren't human" argumentation, you could basically argue your way to the death penalty for all criminals. In all honesty though, I disagree with the premise... Humanity isn't defined by empathy, it's defined by genetics. If you're a member of the species Homo sapiens, you're human. That's it. If you think certain people should be killed, just stand by that. The mental gymnastics of trying to redefine people as 'not human' with abstract concepts such as empathy is just muddling the issue.
What do you think about my idea of how it could affect society? I suspect that many Americans show the revenge-based view of justice exactly because America has had the death penalty. I suspect that a society with the death penalty will glorify punishment, by being more dramatic and satisfying bloodlust. I suspect that because of that, revenge and violence in general becomes a more accepted idea throughout society, and through that could maybe cause an increase in crime.
And?
I'm not someone who particularly supports the death penalty, but I'm not petty enough to be concerned about whether such a punishment is "too good" for him just as long as he's not going to be a problem afterwards.
You don't need to, Prisoners will probably shank him and it will be ruled as a "suicide" as no one will defend a nonce.
His balls would drop?
I mean, I imagine he'll get a life-means-life sentence, but I could be wrong. 4% of innocents are posthumously exonerated after execution, which is the main reason to be against it, although I'd argue that it's not humanitarian either.
that doesn't do the crime any justice. it's equivalent to taking a child away from their computer games.
punishment needs to matter. it not only somewhat reassures the victims that are left behind but deters others.
A death penalty is hardly the same fucking thing as taking away computer games from a child lmao
The cost of feeding and housing a lifetime inmate is pretty marginal. I'm not going to compare it to the cost of death penalty because I don't really understand why death penalty is so costly (countless of appeals and court proceedings probably)
Lifetime inmates could also work and contribute to the society from within incarceration to make it more worthwhile, maybe? I understand you may think otherwise, but they are a capital resource of sorts.
They're still a part of the society, no matter if you kill them or "separate" them from society or whatever you do. At the end of the day, you're still going to end up with people doing crimes that nobody can expect, leaving you asking "What should we do with you?"
And it's not like drug use, which you mentioned, is uncommon in U.S. prisons. I'm sure there's a lot of drugs around in there too.
And it's useless to pick Breivik as some sort an example. Generally, Norway being Norway, it's not unexpected that their prisons are not only fewer in number than in the U.S., but also generally better equipped and constructed. Or would you rather that the prison should have to go out of their way to construct a lower-quality wing or a cell section to "better" accommodate Breivik specifically in a cell that "fits" his crime?
If nothing else, I think you need to realize that prisoners should be treated the same, no matter the crime. Why go out your way to treat them unequally? Why spend energy to do that, when you have a perfectly secure prison to have them all locked up in similar if not identical rooms and so on? Or should you design a prison that gives other criminals a better, or worse time, than others instead?
i didn't say death penalty don't you read.
don't reply to a dialogue if you don't read the conversation.
Uh, it kinda is? I'd say something as drastic as losing your fucking life would definitely be way more than good enough.
are you for or against the death penalty?
I'm not really for it, but it's less because I'd rather see him get slaughtered by inmates and more because it's pretty barbaric and you'd have to be absolutely sure that the offender is guilty (Though, it sounds like he is in this case). I wouldn't be opposed to a life sentence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
