He gets to go out of his cell for an hour a day?

I think the death penalty should not be used at all for retribution. It's a "delete" key for God's typos.

However, I even advocate torture in some situations. I'm more a "punishment fits the crime" kind of guy.

I agree that there are practical problems here based on the sheer volume of crime and criminals, especially in the US.

I don't consider the idea of "future trust" as I don't really believe that people can change or in the concept of rehabilitation, except perhaps in the abstract.

If we are talking about violent crime and the types of people that might find themselves on death row I especailly don't think that rehabilitaion really enters the picture. It should be jail for life (real life not 20 years), and the only possible release would be of an old man who is considered harmless through simple physical degeneration. (old men are generally harmless regardles of what they did in their youth with the exception of true psychopaths IMO)I would argue that the "burden" of maintaining them in prisons is exagerrated in most cases and something worth paying to get rid of the problem. The only real concern again is the sheer volume of crime and criminals which is indeed (currently) far out of whack with historical average percentages of criminals to "regular"members of society.

I would also argue that it is not so much a burden as a responsibility. It is the way we have chosen to organise the society that is the root cause of the criminal in the first place. The cost of the prison system is therefore the price the society pays for being the way it is. It's our "fault" that we have criminals in a sense.

If we want to reduce that price, we could chose to change as a society; to bring up children differently, to change the structure of society as to be more equitable or less crass. We can choose to value different things, thus reducing the criminal population and the "burden" but for the time being the burden of the prision system is the cost we pay for the way we live IMO. I think this is really a central thing. Studies of nature and the animal kingdom (of which we are a part), consistently point to the fact that survival of a particular species and the smooth working of the entire ecosystem relies as much on interspecies and inter-individual cooperation as it does on conflict or competition.

As long as we choose to base our society on competition and self interest we only really have one half of the societal equation needed for a healthy existence. "Nature" really isn't just about the so-called "survival of the fittest," we just use that part of nature as a metaphor for justifying how we are.

IMO the ultimate answer to these sorts of things is the eventual re-working of society away from aggressive, Capitalistic and Machiavellian kind of thinking and towards a model based more on cooperation.

This will likely not occur for hundreds of years.

I think you go too far when you suggest that we need to change society so it is less competititve and more cooperative. I wouldn't exactly blame society for the lack of coopeation that some of its members demonstrate. You are removing quite a bit of personal responsibility from the equation.

Given your view, however, I can readily accept the idea that society needs to accept the burden of its criminals as its responsibility. But such a position does not necessarily deny a society the right to discard its criminals if it desires (again based upon a predetermined set of guidelines that are not arbitrary and also act in the interest of equal protection).

The ritual-like performance of an execution is interesting and disturbing. It may not be just about putting a person to death, but perhaps about reinforcing the importance of cooperation and the consequences to a society if there is no cooperation.

I'm trying to frame the idea of the death penalty and justice as an important aspect of group cooperation. The ritual may actually serve a very important purpose, even if we can't explain what that purpose is or how it directly affects us.

I guess I'm saying that I don't find the death penalty barbaric, but very complex and filling a very important role in the reinforcement of the need for cooperation.

Because I'm an inconsitant, emotional, vengeful, vindictive, wrathful, spiteful, bastard and all around sonuvabitch.

You would have known that if you read my signature.

Who said I had to be consistant? A consistant attitude doesn't work if the world isn't also consistant, which it's not. In reality, it's just a handicap.

Or, to use your eloquent phrase, "being consistant is lame".

Fuck. We'd end up being competing nation-states then, Neehai, because I absolutely agree.

Do you think a death penalty is a more effective deterrent to crime than life in prison? The idea of it as an important ritual isn't one I'd really thought about before. That's an interesting concept.

I don't think the act of punishment itself does anything good for anyone, beyond perhaps this ritual closure aspect. It mostly serves as a deterrent to people who aren't able to reason out the actual consequences of their acts, or who just wouldn't care about the harm they do others. I don't think it does much for this type of guy, who is just too insane to care what happens to himself or anyone else.

Revenge is for those too weak to really control the other.

Revenge is also fun.

The real issue, though, to me is... I don't see why I should have to pay for murderers. I'm paying enough for my own appartment, I don't want to help pay for theirs.

Hey does this guy get cable..or just local channels...because cable would be unfair...I totally have to pay for it...Id kill people too if they gave me free cable...

On a cost basis, life in prison, including free porn and cable TV, still beats the death penalty hands-down. Reversing that would mean we would just decide not to worry about making sure every last convicted murderer really did it; just drag them out to the nearest tree right after the first trial, no appeal.

I wouldn't mind that so much. Life is cheap, ain't it? 10 bucks for another alt.

maybe not lame, but I'll go as far to say boring perhaps they mean kind of the same thing?

Both you and Neehai make an intersting point..it seems that you both feel that as individuals you believe (or at least feel more comfortable with the idea) that you as an individual can exercise the appropriate amout of punishment and compassion depending on the situation, but once that decision is in the hands of some institution or appointed authority, you lose trust in its ability to administer justice fairly, equally or apporpriately. Is this a proper characterization?

Interesting...

I dont think I could personally do that. Putting the power or authority for such actions into a ruling body (judge/jury/courts) may not always produce the results you would personally desire, but at least the impact or pressure of making such decisions doesnt too heavly burden one person. Imagine if one person had to carry that burden...it would certainly result in the cesation of state sponsored deaths if it were left in the hands of a concientious and compassionate person.

Maybe that's why we do it the way we do?

Theres a line from Men in Black that sums up my feelings here...

J: People are smart, they can handle it.
K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Or, simply: I don't trust a bureaucracy.

.