Death penalty and Life in prison. Which is more barbaric?

[Norsefire]

Is the death penalty really the more barbaric one? Let's examine both closely: death penalty, and life in prison without the possibility of parole.


The death penalty kills the condemned (criminal).

Life in prison strips them of their freedom, and condemns them to die as prisoners. It is the act of the state stripping someone of their freedom and effectively condeming them to die.


I really don't understand how you can be against the death penalty, but not mind life in prison. If anything, it's even more barbaric and inhumane.

Just the very words: Life in Prison. Prison. A prison. The very word is barbaric.

The only saving grace of prison is that if you are innocent and wrongly convicted, you can go free. But this is really a thin line; you could just as easily have wasted decades of your life in there.

Therefore, which is more barbaric? Is prison not a barbaric concept? Dungens, prisons.........these are barbaric!

Is the death penalty not more civilized? After all, think of it as social maintenance: removing those from society who need to be removed, for the sake of the preservation of that society.

Also, before all you liberals say "well the death penalty is an act of society killing a man"........ok, and life in prison is the act of society condeming that man to both slavery and death.

 

[shorty_37]

Personally I would rather get the death penalty then stay in prison for the rest of my life.

 

[Norsefire]

Personally I would rather get the death penalty then stay in prison for the rest of my life.

Perhaps in the long term, I would as well. However, I would be scared shitless of being executed.

 

[Asguard]

Norsefire Im not 100% sure because i have tried looking it up before with no hits but i BELIVE in australia (at least in some if not all the juristictions) there is no such thing as life without the possablity. What the sentance here is "held at her majesty's pleasure". This means there is no automatic parol date but rather the prisioner must show that they are reformed and are safe to be releaced.
Personally i would prefer all sentances be abolished and replaced with this concept but it has to go hand in hand with a compleatly new aproch to the justice system which is more focused on the biopsychosocial reasons people offend. It also requires ALOT more money be spent on the justice system because the reasons guards become sadistic to "break" prisioners needs to be eliminated (stryder posted a link to an experiment on prisoner\guard relations which should make anyone with a brain want to destroy the current "justice" system). The last change which is needed is the political side, as long as polies can win political points being "tough on crime" the more crime there will be. For most people the reasoning for this should be self evident (and no i dont mean the pollies just make up NEW crimes)

 

[Norsefire]

Your idea would be valuable only before the event. It'd be valuable in screening out potential criminals, but not after they have committed the heinous action. After that, it's a matter of punishment, of which we have two options

life in prison
execution

And I really don't understand how the former is more humane. If anything, it's more barbaric.

 

[Asguard]

what the fuck are you talking about. It quite effective AFTER the event and apsolutly USLESS before

 

[Norsefire]

what the fuck are you talking about. It quite effective AFTER the event and apsolutly USLESS before

You misunderstand. It's useful before the event because by studying criminal psychology, we are able to understand their mindset, and thus perhaps able to counsel and prevent potential criminals.

After the event, the deed has been done. It's now a matter of punishment.

 

[shorty_37]

However, I would be scared shitless of being executed.

So would I. I think the waiting for it to finally happen would be the most brutal.

 

[Asguard]

Punishment Doesnt Work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Norsefire]

Punishment Doesnt Work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Works to do what? It works fine to punish.

 

[Asguard]

actually the only thing it works well for is breeding MORE criminals and culling population (which admitedly maybe argued as being a good thing).

 

[Norsefire]

actually the only thing it works well for is breeding MORE criminals and culling population (which admitedly maybe argued as being a good thing).

Punishment breeds more criminals? Please elaborate

 

[madanthonywayne]

I don't think either is barbaric. I just think life in prison is stupid. You really think these hardened criminals are "suffering" in prison? Ever hear of Briar Rabbit?

In 1966, Richard Speck broke into a Southeast Side dormitory and killed eight student nurses, in a murder spree that is still considered one of the most heinous and horrible in Chicago history.

Three decades after the crime and even five years after his own death, Speck was still making headlines and drawing ire from prosecutors and victims' families who saw him mocking the justice system.

In May 1996, former CBS 2 anchorman Bill Kurtis received an eight-year-old videotape from an attorney. The tape showed Speck and two other inmates in their cell at Stateville Prison. Not only did Speck remorselessly admit to the murders and describe how he carried them out in chilling detail, but he engaged in a hedonistic romp of sex and drugs use, right there in his cell at Stateville Prison.

Indignant state lawmakers today watched a videotape in the Capitol here showing a mass murderer snorting cocaine, engaging in sex and bragging about living the good life at Stateville prison.

The killer, the late Richard Speck, murderer of eight young nurses in Chicago in 1966, also displays $100 bills on the tape and says at one point, "If they only knew how much fun I was having in here, they would turn me loose." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...nce/Times Topics/Subjects/R/Recordings (Video)

 

[oiram]

Personally I would rather have life in prison over death and I do not think life in prison is barbaric (maybe the food they serve is, but at least you are able to live)
The cost of housing an inmate for life is always part of the argument, but the cost of a death penalty case, appeals and all that is involved in a actual death sentence usually cost more than simply warehousing a person for life.

Either way I personally would rather be alive to read about current news and be able to write letters to loved ones and share my thoughts because eventually we will all be pushing up daises so why rush our dirt nap. But that’s me…. What about the violent serial killers and criminals on such a level? That is a tough question for me…..

I think the actual ‘convicted for life’ inmate should be able to decide his fate, if he wants to live in prison for life, fine! If he wants to die then let society help him with assisted suicide… Then the government doesn’t have to make such a decision and spend so much money on the death penalty… Does anyone know what the suicide rate in prisons in the USA is?

I think murder is murder whoever is doing it, even lethal injection but at the same time I believe there are individuals so dangerous they never deserve another chance to live fee in society…

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Inmates still make valuable contributions to society. I would much rather have life in prison than the death penalty. I guess I'd just rather be alive than dead. I think you can still give life meaning even if you are confined to a prison. But you adapt, you make friends, life is different but you move on.

 

[James R]

For people wrongly convicted, a life sentence is certainly not as bad as a death sentence, since the injustice can be reversed.

 

[Syzygys]

Punishment Doesnt Work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why we should eliminate prisons... Man, you are stupid!!!

For people wrongly convicted, a life sentence is certainly not as bad as a death sentence, since the injustice can be reversed.

But just in case it is not, imagine yourself to be locked up forever INNOCENTLY....

 

[iceaura]

Allowing their government to kill its citizens is a mistake of the historically ignorant.

All the proponents of capital punishment specify conditions - that the convicted be actually guilty, that only certain crimes committed in certain ways be liable, etc - that are not found in reality.

They also invoke justifications - that the criminal deserves punishment equivalent to their crime, that the victims or their relatives have a claim on vengeance, etc - that are profoundly impossible or irrelevant to the situation.

Even the most ardent Statist must recognize that no government can enact vengeance, or determine what a person "deserves" in this sense.

If life in the government's prison is barbaric, that should be changed. Meanwhile, barbarity has nothing to do with allowing governments this kind of power. Safety and common sense do. Governments kill in cold blood, and they kill for their own reasons, inevitably.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Allowing their government to kill its citizens is a mistake of the historically ignorant.

Pretending that governments don't already have the power of life and death over their citizens is a mistake of the politically ignorant.

All the proponents of capital punishment specify conditions - that the convicted be actually guilty, that only certain crimes committed in certain ways be liable, etc - that are not found in reality.

In reality we do the best we can to insure that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the best any human can do, and that fact is no reason to not apply the just punishment for murder.

They also invoke justifications - that the criminal deserves punishment equivalent to their crime, that the victims or their relatives have a claim on vengeance, etc - that are profoundly impossible or irrelevant to the situation.

How is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime (one of the oldest concepts in the administration of justice) irrelevent? Is it because you don't agree with it? Do you believe there should be no relationship between the magnitude of the offence and the magnitude of the punishment? Or what?

Even the most ardent Statist must recognize that no government can enact vengeance, or determine what a person "deserves" in this sense.

A jury of your peers determines what punishment you deserve. It's not that complicated.

Meanwhile, barbarity has nothing to do with allowing governments this kind of power.

They already have this power!!!! The government can draft a totally innocent man and send him to his death in a horrific manner in some Godforsaken country on the other side of the earth. The governent can decide that you can't recieve the medicine or treatment that you need to avoid intense pain, or even death. The government decides how fast you drive, what safety features are included on your car, even what materials are appropriate for baby clothes.

With all this power over the life and death of the innocent, how in the hell is it beyond the pale that this same government should have the power to put to death our most heinous criminals?

 

[Syzygys]

I would like to ask Iceaura to send a couple of bucks to the Ted Bundy Memorial Fund. After all we don't want that the memory of such a fine specimen could fade away...