A discussion on capital punishment?

[AlucardNoir]

I'd go even further by making most repeat offenders "eligible" for the death penalty. Also, yeah, guillotine seems to be the way to go. For the prisoner, the most "humane" way of dying would be a bullet to the back of the head, but that would have negative psychological effects on the executioners so the guillotine seems an acceptable replacement.

[Yukaphile]

I'm in favor of lethal injection to sedated prisoners. Even a guillotine strikes me as barbaric. Ew. Though of course, a discussion of capital punishment cannot be complete without this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Enjoy.

[clearspira]

I'd go even further by making most repeat offenders "eligible" for the death penalty. Also, yeah, guillotine seems to be the way to go. For the prisoner, the most "humane" way of dying would be a bullet to the back of the head, but that would have negative psychological effects on the executioners so the guillotine seems an acceptable replacement.

Would that have negative effects on the executioner? I bet you there are thousands of would-be Punisher types out there who would gun down people they thought was evil by the dozen before going home and sleeping REAL nice...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think the most suiting punishment is forcing those poor souls to live with their sins. I'm sure even Yuka could agree with that. Can you imagine spending eternity having to deal with something that some of those convicts have done?

[Riedquat]

An attitude that results in a hell of utilitarianism trumping all else. We're not scraping by, having to put every single resource towards basic survival. We can afford some degree of civilisation.

You're definition of civilization seems to be "waste or resources".

You've got to be pretty screwed up to interpret what I said as that. Part of my definition of civilisation is not killing people just because we happen to find it convenient and it might save a bit of resources. It's the very opposite of being obsessed with "waste or resources;" humanity has its place to play too.

When it comes to someone's life, and there are alternatives, never. Because as soon as you get it wrong the system is just as guilty of murder as anyone you're putting to death for murder.

Then you should probably not look into triage and how the term "collateral" is used in a military setting. Your comment makes you sound like the kind of guy that can't handle reality.

I can't handle reality?! You really think equating the death penalty to triage or collateral is reality? Once you've got someone who's a danger to the public out of the way your argument is ridiculous. Where "collateral" can be acceptable is sometimes in catching a criminal in the first place - there's always a chance of a police chase putting someone else at risk for example. But not once they're behind bars. As for the triage comparison, that's just completely absurd.

Some people here sound like they'd be more at home in the Spanish Inquisition.

[AlucardNoir]

You're definition if civilization seems to be "whatever I say is civilized is civilized and the rest are just barbarians". Just look at your last line. The Spanish Inquisition is a product of the European Christian civilization.

Here's the thing, you put the lives of innocents above the resources wasted on keeping unrepentant criminals alive. Doctors don't do that when they do triage, they put the lives they are most likely to save above those of people they are likely to loose. Armies put the lives saved by killing certain targets above the lives of innocents lost. Why the fuck would we do the exact same for criminals.

Humanity has its place to play too, but a human that has spend 30 years in prison might as well be dead for all that the rest of civilization is concerned. He'll have no fiances, no friends, slim to nonexistent gainful employment opportunities, little to no chance to form or suport a family of his own if he didn't have one when he was sent to prison. After a certain age people that get out of prison are known to commit crimes just to get back in because that's all they know. Those people are just a burden to society at that point. And for those that only spend 1-5 years on the inside, they usually came out better skilled at committing crimes then they do at whatever job they had before.

We know torture, imprisonment and even the death penalty don't work as deterrents, but at least the death penalty removes the dangerous elements from society without costing society. And yes, sometimes innocent people would get sent to death, and yes, that would be a tragedy - but as long as I'm ok with even one civilian dying to stop an enemy combatant I can't be against the death penalty just because an innocent person might die.

[McAvoy]

I still stand by the bullet to the head being the most simple.

If need be, create a machine that can hold a gun and have a program that will randomly shoot the bullet within a minute. This takes away the human element of the executioner as much as possible. It's quick.

It is far messier than even the gullitine.

The argument that let the guilty live with his conscious for the rest of his life works if the person has a conscious. If the person has something to be saved within himself even if he will live in prison for the rest of his life.

May I am more cynical now, but those who truly exhibit no remorse or anything that would suggest that he could feel something remote badly in what he has done then I think it's a waste of time and resources. Put him down. We do it with animals.

[Riedquat]

You're definition if civilization seems to be "whatever I say is civilized is civilized and the rest are just barbarians". Just look at your last line. The Spanish Inquisition is a product of the European Christian civilization.

Now that's a convenient "whatever it claims to be" line, unless you're rejecting the whole concept.

Here's the thing, you put the lives of innocents above the resources wasted on keeping unrepentant criminals alive. Doctors don't do that when they do triage, they put the lives they are most likely to save above those of people they are likely to loose. Armies put the lives saved by killing certain targets above the lives of innocents lost. Why the fuck would we do the exact same for criminals.

The main reason is the risk of miscarriage of justice. If you could be 100% sure of guilt I'd have considerably less problem with the death penalty in some cases. Certainly in the UK there have been some notable cases of convictions that were later overturned that might've attracted the death penalty had it existed (Guildford Four, Birmingham Six).

The other is when you live in a reasonably wealthy society it can afford those resources. A doctor doing triage is having to make an assessment with the limited resources at hand, that isn't comparable with a criminal in prison. It might be comparable with a very small society that needs everyone to pitch in to survive so simply cannot spare the resources. It's similar with the army - there has to be a decision made there. But there doesn't with a criminal in prison. Yes, it's expensive to keep someone locked up but the numbers aren't so large (for offences that most people are willing to contemplate the death penalty for) that anyone would noticeably lose out if they were spent elsewhere, particularly if you've also got quite an extensive and expensive system of checks and balances (for, say, the USA, what is the difference in cost between the death penalty and life imprisonment?)

Humanity has its place to play too, but a human that has spend 30 years in prison might as well be dead for all that the rest of civilization is concerned. He'll have no fiances, no friends, slim to nonexistent gainful employment opportunities, little to no chance to form or suport a family of his own if he didn't have one when he was sent to prison.

After a certain age people that get out of prison are known to commit crimes just to get back in because that's all they know. Those people are just a burden to society at that point. And for those that only spend 1-5 years on the inside, they usually came out better skilled at committing crimes then they do at whatever job they had before.

The same is often true of repeat offenders for minor offences.

We know torture, imprisonment and even the death penalty don't work as deterrents, but at least the death penalty removes the dangerous elements from society without costing society. And yes, sometimes innocent people would get sent to death, and yes, that would be a tragedy - but as long as I'm ok with even one civilian dying to stop an enemy combatant I can't be against the death penalty just because an innocent person might die.

The difference there is that you're risking a civilian to save more lives in the combat situation, in the criminal one you're risking one to save money society can afford. The only way it could stack up enough to change my mind is if the numbers added up so that the risk of released offenders going on to kill more (and making whatever allowances for other serious crimes that might attract the death penalty) is higher than the number of innocents killed by the system. And even that might require "much higher" - I'm sure you're familiar with the quote "That it is better a hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

[Darth Wedgius]

Nitrogen asphyxiation is supposed to be pretty humane. Humans are set up to detect a build-up of carbon dioxide, not a lack of oxygen, and our air is mostly nitrogen, so theoretically put someone in an environment with plenty of nitrogen and too little oxygen and they just go to sleep and die. That's happened by accident with nitrogen leaks.

If you want to be even more sure, a high-speed explosive can destroy the head faster than nerve signals in the brain can propagate.

[Yukaphile]

The "live with my sins" crowd strike me as hypocritical in some way. Yeah, it's easy to say "I've seen my past behavior as wrong," but are you actually still living that lifestyle? They ain't Red in The Shawshank Redemption, where he spends 40 years in jail, plus feels the guilt so strongly, he in some ways doesn't wanna leave. You could have somebody saying they are "living with their sins" when they are not since they still adhere to the lifestyle that spread so much suffering. Yeah, it's just bullshit. Especially the matter-of-fact way they list their past crimes. You can tell nothing has changed.