Much debate has been made regarding the death sentence - whether to have it, how to apply it, why isn't there more/less of it. Some positions and arguments are better than others. I think one of the biggest issues - beyond whether it's right or wrong to us in the judicial system - is how do you implement/apply it and avoid punishing innocent people? And, quite frankly, if you can't be 100% right, 100% of the time ... it really should not be used at ALL because it's reallyreallyreally hard (read: impossible) to justify exactly what percentage of mistakes are "acceptable" to justify the correct applications of the death penalty.
Now some people will say there is a certain level of "mistakes" that are theoretically acceptable - and I truly believe that it's not out of their lust for death/killing which, it has the outward appearance of - but more out of their frustration with and need for "meaningful" justice. In increasingly violent times, people are frustrated and sick and tired of long drawn out judicial processes that take decades - at law-abiding taxpayer expense - for many violent criminals that project, not only an inability for rehabilitation but also project a desire and lust for mayhem and death. Who wants to feed and care for such criminals (I was going to say "animals - but that would be an insult to animals) for decades when all they want to do is harm law-abiding citizens AND are rock stars and professors in the prisons they're housed. I mean, these criminals literally "teach" potentially rehabilitatable prisoners how to be WORSE.
BUT ... there is a solution. But it requires us to approach this issue from a completely objective and dispassionate position. And that REALLY hard for a lot of people to do because of all the influences they've had throughout their lives. It will require them to shelve their faith and current morals (to an extent) and approach this without emotion.
The solution is two parts:
1. Change the standard for implementation of the death penalty to this: For the death penalty to apply, there MUST be positive evidence of guilt BEYOND ALL DOUBT. Currently we use the criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt",but I propose to change it to "there is NO doubt possible" as to the guilt of the accused ... now that could mean a detailed and accurate confession and/or DNA evidence along with video and other evidence that leaves no possibility for the crime to have been committed by any one OTHER than the accused.
If you have this, you can streamline the process and stop wasting money and time to reach a resolution to justice.
2. There MUST be a completely humane method that is universally acceptable to everyone. Far too often, what stands in the way of the death penalty is this idea that it must cause some "suffering" to make up for the pain and suffering to the victims - honestly, this is a revolting thought to me. If there must be a penalty of death then it should be as efficient as possible ... the "death" penalty is not the "pain, suffering and death" penalty ... we need to stop treating it as if it is.
There is a perfectly acceptable and painlessly quick/efficient way to kill criminals - hypoxia - the same thing that kills people in a depressurized plane at 25,000 feet of elevation - lack of oxygen. NOTE: this is NOT suffocation! Hypoxia - the lack of oxygen but NOT the overabundance of carbon dioxide, which is the gas that gives people the "panic/dread" feeling - lack of oxygen causes a brief euphoria and disorientation before the subject blacks out then ultimately dies. - no muss not fuss and no elaborate or ghastly equipment and procedures - just a room with low/reducible oxygen levels and a a way to disburse/dilute carbon dioxide and you're done.
As an aside - you could implement a program that would allow long serving of life time sentenced criminals to choose this method after x time served to further reduce the prison population of habitual, long term criminals.
Feel free to discuss the potential "downsides" please. I think this is a very pragmatic and efficient solution to a difficult problem that offers a type of middle ground between the pro and anti death penalty factions.
That’s a very interesting and also a rather difficult topic to discuss. Over here we do not have the death penalty and quite honestly, punishment rarely consists of a lifetime, with no chance on parole.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there shouldn’t be any doubt before taking someone’s life. But then there’s that next question: Who are we to decide that we have to kill the killer? Yes, I am aware that those who are sentenced for a minor crime and are sentenced to jail, learn all the tricks in the book once locked up in jail, becoming a far better criminal they’d ever imagined possible, but taking a life to prevent this from happening? I do however agree that it is a waste of money and space to feed those who will never change and whose intent it is to do harm to others without any remorse whatsoever. Then again, who am I to judge and decide who will never change for the better?
What I do applaud though are those series involving kids spending a day in jail. This might give them a reality check of what they are about to encounter when continuing the path they’re already on.
I'm not really interested in the debate of "Who are we to judge?" That's why I specifically did NOT address that question. I was more focused on the fact that the death penalty DOES exist here in the US - again - rightly or wrongly - it simply does, for the time being.
ReplyDeleteThat said - an argument can be made that with the penalty on the books and most everyone being well aware of what constitutes "death", that people who choose to undertake the actions that carry this penalty - THEY chose to forfeit their lives - not society in general. You know - actions have consequences, you reap what you sew - and all that.
"I'm not really interested in the debate of 'Who are we to judge?' That's why I specifically did NOT address that question."
DeleteUh-oh! ;)
"Currently we use the criteria of 'beyond reasonable doubt', but I propose to change it to 'there is NO doubt possible'"
'Not sure that could work. I mean, we have forensics and technology in this day and age. E.g..crimes caught on video, DNA in bodily fluids, fingerprints, yadda, yadda. A defense attorney could object and offer alternatives for each thing: "That's not my client on video!...it's a guy who looks just like him!"..or.."My client's disgruntled ex-girlfriend got some of my client's sperm from a condom and planted it at the crime scene!"...or..."Someone copied my client's fingerprints using Silly Puddy and framed him!".
You can't say those things are not in the realm of possibility in any absolute sense. But alas, those scenarios are not reasonable, hence, the "reasonable doubt".(I think)
Just to be clear regarding my "proposal" - the elevated standard of "Beyond doubt/There is NO doubt", is only reserved for the sentencing portion of a trial - NOT the "guilt/innocence" portion of the trial. And the elevated standard is ONLY applied when the death sentence is a potential punishment.
DeleteA person can be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" - that remains the same based on the scenarios you present and I'm quite sure some very guilty/unsavory characters would avoid the death penalty under my new elevated standard based on expert lawyering and shenanigans that you present ... and that would be fine because they could still be sentenced to life without parole etc.
But make no mistake - there is no shortage of pompous egomaniacs that will happily thump their chests and proclaim "I killed those people to save the babies" (Paraphrased quote from the Planned Parenthood murderer/terrorist) who would be amply eligible for the death penalty under my scenario :)
I'd further contend that those who will most proudly proclaim their guilt are precisely the people that should get expedited to their chosen paradise :P
But more importantly - I'd rather keep 10 murderers alive in prison if it means one falsely accused, innocent person who got railroaded and languished in prison for 10 years before his/her innocence was proven, would live to walk out of that prison.
"Just to be clear regarding my 'proposal' - the elevated standard of 'Beyond doubt/There is NO doubt', is only reserved for the sentencing portion of a trial - NOT the 'guilt/innocence' portion of the trial."
DeleteNoted, but shouldn't that be "guilty/not guilty"? After all, a "not guilty" verdict is not mutually exclusive with "innocent". Just ask O.J. lol
shouldn't that be "guilty/not guilty"
DeleteYes - you are correct sir :P
Should have read, "not mutually inclusive"
DeleteShould have read,
DeleteI knew what you meant ... just like I have no doubt, you knew what I meant ;)
Merry Christmas, my friend :)
True. People know about the consequences, so they are warned in advance. It’s a pity such a penalty is needed. Then again, I wonder if most cold blooded killers (for which this is invented IMO) really care about this. They keep on doing so, simply “because they can”, that is until they get stopped. Permanently.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a pity such a penalty is needed
DeletePerhaps ... there's about a million and one "reasons" why a person might choose to commit a crime that carries the death penalty. Again, I'm not debating the merits of whether or not there should be a death penalty and/or what types of social/educational/medical/psychological programs that could be implemented to help people make better choices.
Here - in the US, many states currently employ the death penalty - that is a reality. But what is also a reality is that a few people have been wrongly convicted and evidence eventually comes to light that exonerates them ... except, you cant very well bring an innocent person - who was wrongly convicted and wrongly executed - back from the dead. It's THIS point that my post addresses - not societies ills, for better or worse, or the merits and/or validity of the death penalty and whether there is need or utility for it.
Thanks for reading/participating :)
ReplyDelete" ... except, you cant very well bring an innocent person - who was wrongly convicted and wrongly executed - back from the dead."
ReplyDeleteThe way you present it, it only leaves room for one solution: No death penalty at all. Our system may be way to friendly (both in accommodation and especially duration), but at least you stay alive (if you don't kill yourself in jail/get killed by fellow prisoners).
"Thanks for reading/participating :)"
YW. It's always interesting to see the differences in cultures and accompanying solutions and get to think/talk about them.