I misunderstood your story about the man in your town having anything to do with your basis of opinion.

It was a story to illustrate a point, the point being that it can often take a long time before miscarriages of justice are revealed. That particular case was an extreme example of course, given that it was the longest example of a miscarriage of justice in British history, but the point stands. I oppose capital punishment primarily, although not entirely, because I don't believe that the risk of innocent men being killed is justified the catharsis some people in wider society feel when horrible men are killed.

Hear, hear, Sass.

So what do we do? Sass says that they should not have a "cushy" existence, but what is the minimum that a prisoner should have?

They have already drawn a great deal of worth out of society, and how much more should be society's responsibility then?

bbauska wrote:So what do we do? Sass says that they should not have a "cushy" existence, but what is the minimum that a prisoner should have?

room and board, exercise, mental stimulation.

They have already drawn a great deal of worth out of society, and how much more should be society's responsibility then?

This seems to be veering toward the idea that because there is a cost in keeping people alive and to a certain living standard, we should kill them instead.

My view is that we should treat every human being in the same basic way. It is a concept called "human rights". These limit what the state can do to people. They do not, unfortunately, stop people being mean to each other, but as any small-state proponent knows, governments by the nature of their power need limits beyond those that we can impose on individuals.

On the subject of cost, I'm willing to bet that the cost of keeping somebody on death row for several years and paying for all the legal expenses involved with their appeals (which of necessity will have to be very stringent) won't be too far removed from the cost of imprisoning them for a much lengthier period.

I think prison is a pretty significant punishment in itself, especially so if you're facing the prospect of a lifetime with no realistic prospect of parole.

freeman3 wrote:If you make an argument as to why you think there is no link between a culture starting to oppose capital punishment and the lowering of homicide rates, I'll address it, DF. I didn't see one made above...

Here's what I'm saying: you are making a claim there is a link. I could just as easily say there is a link between soccer and the lowering of homicide rates. Or, there's a link between whatever and lower homicide rates. Maybe it's that other countries don't eat as many hot dogs.

You simply assume the two are linked. I disagree. I don't have to prove a thing because you didn't even try to prove anything.

Crime rates have been falling across the western world since the mid 90s and there are a lot of qualified criminologists who have no idea why it's happening. One idea I found interesting is that there's a correlation between the banning of leaded petrol and subsequent sharp decline in violent crimes about 10 years later. This has happened all over the place with similar time lags between the decision to ban leaded fuel and the drop in violence. Lead poisoning is known to result in mental illness and violent tendencies. The lag is attributed to the time taken for the next generation, who have not been exposed to lead in the air they breathe, to grow to young adulthood when violence is more prevalent. It's a plausible idea I think.

Sassenach wrote:

I misunderstood your story about the man in your town having anything to do with your basis of opinion.

It was a story to illustrate a point, the point being that it can often take a long time before miscarriages of justice are revealed. That particular case was an extreme example of course, given that it was the longest example of a miscarriage of justice in British history, but the point stands. I oppose capital punishment primarily, although not entirely, because I don't believe that the risk of innocent men being killed is justified the catharsis some people in wider society feel when horrible men are killed.

And, I reject this line of reasoning for two reasons:

1. It's not about "catharsis." It'a about justice. Justice demands punishment commensurate with the crime.

2. There are some cases wherein there is no chance, ZERO, of a miscarriage of justice. In those cases, to not execute the offender is to fall short of justice.

Sassenach wrote:On the subject of cost, I'm willing to bet that the cost of keeping somebody on death row for several years and paying for all the legal expenses involved with their appeals (which of necessity will have to be very stringent) won't be too far removed from the cost of imprisoning them for a much lengthier period.

I think prison is a pretty significant punishment in itself, especially so if you're facing the prospect of a lifetime with no realistic prospect of parole.

Again, it is the outrageous nature of some of the appeals that prolongs the process. The same people launching pointless appeal after pointless appeal then complain about the length of the appeal process, even saying it is "cruel and inhuman punishment."

Life without parole is not without its rewards and its risks. We just saw that breakout in New York. The amazing thing is that no one (but one of the crooks) was killed.

Individuals sentenced like this can experience joy. They deserve nothing of the sort. They forfeited that right when they committed their heinous crime.

I very much doubt there's a lot of joy in the air in your average high security prison.

Not all convicted murderers remain cold-hearted sociopaths until the day they die. Serving a lifetime in prison gives them all the time they need to experience the full weight of remorse for their actions.

I don't accept that it's not about catharsis, and neither do I accept that the only just punishment for taking a life is the taking of another life. We're obviously never going to agree on this point, but I don't think either of us has the wisdom of Solomon (apologies for the biblical reference, but it seemed appropriate). One man's justice may differ sharply from another man's justice. This self evident truth is why I think this is mostly about catharsis. Those who share your conception of justice want to feel that justice (as you define it) has been done. I can't criticise you for that, but I can respectfully disagree.

Sassenach wrote:I very much doubt there's a lot of joy in the air in your average high security prison.

Not all convicted murderers remain cold-hearted sociopaths until the day they die. Serving a lifetime in prison gives them all the time they need to experience the full weight of remorse for their actions.

I don't accept that it's not about catharsis, and neither do I accept that the only just punishment for taking a life is the taking of another life. We're obviously never going to agree on this point, but I don't think either of us has the wisdom of Solomon (apologies for the biblical reference, but it seemed appropriate). One man's justice may differ sharply from another man's justice. This self evident truth is why I think this is mostly about catharsis. Those who share your conception of justice want to feel that justice (as you define it) has been done. I can't criticise you for that, but I can respectfully disagree.

Nicely put.

I would only add that I'm (likely) more familiar with the criminal mind than most here. The kind of prisons we have in the Western world don't frighten them or fret them . . . not even a little.

Here's some evidence of the link between opposition to capital punishment and lower homicide rates:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre ... rder-rates

Homicide rates a peak in 1993 and have declined then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_i ... ted_States

Executions and death sentences have dropped significantly since 1999.

I suppose the argument can always be made that as homicide rates drop the demand for capital punishment drops. But why would a culture decide just because the murder rate goes down to treat murderers more leniently? One of the primary reasons that the South has a higher homicide rate is their historical culture of honor.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream ... ulture.pdf

I bring this up to note that general cultural norms can affect homicide rates. My argument is in that a culture that demands the death sentence will also have cultural norms that increase homicide rates. A culture that demands death for murderers will also have cultural norms that promote increased violence (such as the culture of honor in the South). They are linked.

Anyway , homicide rates are higher in death penalty states and opposition to the death penalty has grown (as shown by fewer executions and death sentences) while homicides have decreased. I think it is related to a change in cultural norms . What is your explanation?

Seems pretty tenuous to me.

It's an unfair question as well. A perfectly valid answer would be "I don't know, it could be any number of things", but I doubt you'd accept that.

freeman3 wrote:What is your explanation?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

Correlation does not equal causation.

Fate

I'd say it's a good thing for society--if there are sufficient safeguards. I think we have those.

depending on which local jurisdiction one finds oneself in the US - 60 to 90% of defendants require a public defender.
You think that this guarantees a good defence? Highly unlikely ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4

You think it means innocent people aren't being put to death?

At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, according to the first major study to attempt to calculate how often states get it wrong in their wielding of the ultimate punishment.

A team of legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania used the latest statistical techniques to produce a peer-reviewed estimate of the “dark figure” that lies behind the death penalty – how many of the more than 8,000 men and women who have been put on death row since the 1970s were falsely convicted.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... s-innocent