Should the death penalty replace lifetime in prison?

Question

Usually the death sentence is carried out to, not only rid society of violent criminals as a act of justice, but also to discourage the worst crimes possible from being committed in the first place.

The death sentence tends to be more expensive, yes, but that's due to the people given such a sentence served longer prison sentences anyways. Annually, states like California spend $45,000 annually on those given life time in prison (according to a 2012 study).

There's also the argument of racial bias, in which criminals of minority status (like people of color) will more likely be given heavier sentences. Although, according to deathpenaltyinfo, commented that over 50% of those executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty were white/not POC. (there was other websites that claimed this but they were mostly sketchy).

I'd probably go deeper if I make a mytake on this (or just criminal psychology) but I wanted to ask this.

Also This question was inspired by Carol Ann Coronado's sentencing although that's a different topic on whether she deserved it or not. She got life without parole after stabbing her 3 toddler daughters. It seems she had postpartum psychosis when she committed the infanticides.

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

While I understand the case for the death penalty, it suffers from some logical defects. The purpose of the law in general and the penal system in particular is first and foremost, to protect society, second to punish the guilty and third and least, to reform the criminal if possible. In that order.

Capital punishment, generally speaking, does not seem to afford those benefits. First, it is the surety of punishment, not its severity, that is a deterrent to crime. If an individual is sure that they will be punished, they will likely not act. If that individual believes that they might get away with it, they will likely run the risk.

So in that sense, capital punishment fails its first and most important test. It does not deter and therefore it does not protect the society. Throw in that it applies only in cases of premeditation - crimes of passion are not premeditated - and the range of those whom capital punishment applies becomes proportionately smaller.

Secondly, it is axiomatic that we shape our laws and then our laws shape us. In that context, capital punishment reflects - and is a result of - the society's treatment of life as a means rather than an end. In this it is the parallel of the abortion argument. The planted axiom of liberal abortion laws is that life has no value save that which each individual attributes to it, therefore the law has no proper standing to afford it protection.

Capital punishment is a case of the society deciding that the value of life is contingent rather than absolute. That action decides life's value rather than life's inherent worth. When the society places vengeance over any inherent value to life, it will apt in its larger context to see more of the former and value the latter less and less.

To be sure, in the matter of capital punishment that is at the margins and dealing with decidedly unsympathetic individuals. Arguably the case can be made that "killing the killer" suggests that society places a much higher value on life. However, on balance, the inspiration of capital punishment is vengeance and not justice and thus both the value of life and the value of justice is undermined.

Beyond that, humans are imperfect and there are issues related to failings of the legal system. In the question of justice, the accidental execution of the innocent is not an injustice that can be undone. Indeed, it is what suggests that vengeance - and not justice - is what inspires laws that condone capital punishment.

In short, capital punishment harms society with too few countervailing benefits.

ObscuredBeyond · Accepted Answer

There are some categories of crime for which I'd recommend thermal depolymerization of the convicted offender.

It's so weird though, the reactions I get on Facebook to this.

See, it seems suggesting that Dems who allow the UN to run Americans out of their own homes and then quarter foreign troops during peace time should be thermal depolymerized is grounds for 30-day bans.

But then, when California murders thousands of geriatrics by forcing covid patients into nursing homes, just like Whitmer did in Michigan, and then their remains are processed into fertilizer, and sprayed on crops (human flesh fertilizer makes crops poisonous for human consumption!), and you point this out, reactions range from denial to laughter to unhinged threats!

If I make it over-the-top, like saying that Hillary should be put in a Venutian surface simulator, (sulphuric acid clouds, 800 degree temperatures, pressure like the Marianas Trench) I get laugh emojis.

But when I suggest hanging Fauci for reenacting Nazi war crimes, so he can follow his spiritual Nuremberg trial brethren, that leads to bans.

In fact, when rioters and looters can do whatever they please to shops in New York, and police are told to stand down by the worthless-ass mayor, and I suggest shop owners hire security guards armed with flamethrowers in order to send a message to the rioters, that leads to bans!

Aerissa_Jade · Accepted Answer

The real problem is life sentences are not always life sentences, we hear about people on life sentences getting out all the time, either on parole or they get commuted, or pardoned.

Even Frederick Woods, who kidnapped a bus full of kids and buried them ALIVE got out on parole. How the heck does someone who kidnapped 26 kids and buried them alive even get out?

The system is clearly flawed for life sentences.

I say yes for violent crimes, not for things like financial crimes.

Those people should be let out and forced to work to repay what they stole. Requiring them to work and pay back should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

There should be laws requiring the death sentence to be sped up though.

What I mean by that is there should be automatic appeals and required court dates, say 90 days after the first. Not decades... How many attorney hours does one need to defend themselves?

If they have ONE attorney working full time on their case for a year, that is 2040 hours, if they have a decade that is 20400 hours.

Even if the laws say a year between each, three years of that is still 6,120 attorney hours.

They should be assigned an attorney who full time does nothing but their case and have special courts that deal only with the death penalty so there isn't a huge back log. If there is a back log, then another court gets created to assist with it.

Rather than wait until the execution time approaches to hurry and file appeals, those should be automatic right after the first conviction, then if they lose that appeal, automatic to the next level. Exhaust all the options asap... while giving them plenty of hours of resources from their attorney or team of attorney's, who's only job is to defend them.

There is no reason it should take 10 years to carry out the sentence... and then it could actually be cheaper than life sentences, if it is carried out in say 3 years.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates...People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts.--ACLU Even abroad in countries where things we would consider minor crimes are often punishable by death, they have higher crime rates than their neighbors without such laws. It's also really ironic in the US, that a country that wants to do away with abortion because LIFE, would be so apt to stamp it out with the death penalty. Can't have it both ways.

normalice · Answer

No. And there are three reasons:
1. There is no absolute guarantee of guilt. We need execute only one innocent person and then we are all guilty of murder for not just allowing it to happen but also paying for it.
2. The execution requires that someone must take a life. It doesn't matter if someone is willing. That the state is requiring someone to kill someone who necissarily can not be a threat is a problem.
3. The death even of someone who absolutely deserves it still prematurely cuts off access to them by those who might still love them, who don't deserve to have someone they love being taken from them. Doing so anyway will foster a justifiable resentment against the state as they are left only with the version of the criminal in their minds, which they will necissarily purify and justify, instead of the living version with all their flaws that they can visit and see needs to stay removed from society.

All that said, the death penalty for pedophiles, people who falsely accuse others of pedophillia, police who abuse their power, and people who falsely accuse police of abusing their power should all be hanged by the state, in my opinion..

Blueeyes81 · Answer

I was an ardent supporter of the death penalty. However with the rise in DNA technology there have been many cases of lifers and death row inmates overturned because dna evidence proved they were innocent. I only support the death penalty were dna evidence proves without a shadow of doubt the guilt of a suspect. Even then it is possible a person is innocent even if dna suggests otherwise. Exp. (Roommates dna found on kitchen knife used in murder. Dna could have came from a prior cut using the knife) The book The Stranger is a very good read and also makes one ponder the death penalty. The man in question commits murder but is not a cold blooded murderer but the victim of a series of unfortunate events that leads to manslaughter. You see how during the trial everything is twisted to make him look cold and calculating when the truth is much different.

Its a tough call the death penalty. Even if 99% are guilty of the crime think of the 1% who are innocent and yet found guilty. Think of living your life and boom one day you are arrested for something you did not do. Found guilty at trial and sentenced to die.

Look into the Beatrice 6 case.

God_of_Thunder · Answer

I agree, in theory.

It's certainly cheaper, and in some cases, more humane to simply execute the prisoner, rather than spend tons of money keeping them incarcerated.

The problem with that, though, is that it's not entirely uncommon to discover, sometimes years later, that the person in question is actually innocent. There have been an unfortunate amount of cases in which evidence was falsified, witness have lied, labs did shitty work, or the suspect was badgered into a false confession.

Those people would eventually have been released, after unfortunately losing several years of their life in the process, but had they been executed, they would have lost much more than that.

If the above mentioned problems didn't exist, and it were possible to prove, absolutely, that a person was truly guilty, then yeah; execute them.

globetrotter22 · Answer

The only issue I have is if there is a very slim chance the person is innocent. But with advances in forensics that’s becoming less and less likely nowadays.

If OJ Simpson had committed his crime 5 years later chances are there would of had ironclad DNA evidence proving his guilt. Although there was DNA and blood evidence he was guilty it wasn’t airtight and in my opinion how it was presented left wiggle room for the defense (it was still damning evidence).

in my opinion it is bullshit that taxpayers have to pay to keep a heinous criminal alive. But I also got to think that some of these people probably would almost prefer the death sentence vs the slow torture of a lifetime in prison.

Cubus · Answer

It should be reintroduced. I believe in second chance, but for some people there's nothing more justified than a death penalty.

Besides: life sentence generates a lot of costs

Should the death penalty replace lifetime in prison?

This is how cells look in Norway. Imagine how much of taxpayers money go for this.

Anonymous · Answer

Lifetime means 25 years. They can get out early with parole if they can get it. Death sentence should be reserved for murder and child rapists. No not the kind of rape where people got drunk and oh I regret it. I mean actual kidnap rape or burglarize house and rape people in bed kind of rape mostly dealing with kids. These kinds of criminals cannot be reintroduced back into society and they cannot compensate for their crimes except though death. And I’d really love if they could lower the time in prison to only a few years instead of spending a million $$$ before they execute them.

Telekinetic-Potato · Answer

It's hard to say because of all the times someone has been given a life sentence and then 30 years later they found the person who actually did the crime.

On one hand, yea it would be pretty convenient but on the other hand, our courts are corrupt and not holding these cases to a high level of scrutiny.

Astarlessnightsky · Answer

Nope, i am against death penalty in general.

If you want to save money, a prison system like most scandinavian countries have is far more efficient.

Instead of punishment or revenge, they focus on education and preventing crimes. You end up in prison once and get your life together, and can manage to lead a life without commiting any major crimes.

The US has the most cruel and harshest punishments, and still the most prison inmates, among the democratic nations.

josephinelcajon · Answer

So picture this: your husband wife or worse child is murdered in cold blood. Would you like the person responsible to lay down and go peacefully to sleep OR spend every minute of every day in hell remembering why they are there and what they did to get there? Death is too expensive and too easy on them!

ethanallen · Answer

Only if you hate people of color. The death penalty is disproportionally applied. When comparing groups of persons who have been convicted of first degree murder, blacks are far more likely to receive a death penalty sentence than white people.

jshm2 · Answer

Don't be silly.

The justice system is too fractured, and the legal system even worse, for something like the death penalty to be enacted, in any but the most clear cut of cases.

A lot of cases are not clear cut, and some even get rescinded.

Avicenna · Answer

No, capital punishment should only be used in certain cases, and if the facts of the case do not justify capital punishment, it's good that there is the option of life without parole, otherwise you might find some juries unwilling to convict if they know that a capital sentence is mandatory.

Kabluie · Answer

Nope, because there is the data the death penalty disproportionately affects minorities. If anything President Biden is likely to push for ending federal death penalty permanently, as he issued the moratorium. Could also commute all the death sentences that Trump tried to send to death row.

Drumlin2001 · Answer

I think an alternative to keeping people who can't live within our society needs to be found. Keeping people locked up costs to much. I'm not just talking the most violent crimes either. If someone has 100 convictions there's a problem, and they are a huge drain on police, courts, prison, probation services. Whether solution is death penalty, or a remote island where they can be isolated cheaper I don't know

Anonymous · Answer

The death sentence is basically the same thing as life in prison. The lawyers will be fighting back and front for 20 plus years until they actually kill the prisoner and the prisoner will be in jail for 20 plus years until he dies from poor living conditions.

Anonymous · Answer

First, the death penalty costs more.

Second, you can Google just how often people are released because of corrupt or incompetent lawyers and cops. Do you really want to trust those fuckwits with the power of life and death? No. life in prison is cheaper the suffering is longer (for the guilty, I like this) and if mistakes are made they can be rectified.

ArtemisSilver · Answer

The government makes too many mistakes for that. I would say it should only be an option in extremely severe and doubtlessly irrefutable cases.

Although I am in favour of giving prisoners the right to choose execution instead of a long sentence, with at least half of the cost savings sent to charity, family or victims.

exitseven · Answer

Yes, a lot of times when somebody gets life without parole, some liberal judge ends up granting the prisoner parole. I expect the Boston Marathon bomber to get out at some point in time. Lethal injection would prevent that.

John_Doesnt · Answer

The death penalty never works as a deterrent and it is usually done in underdeveloped countries except the US and Japan. Most people want the death penalty out of revenge and revenge is not justice.

BlueScorpio · Answer

Yes. Thou shall not kill. It's extremely hypocritical to hate murderers only to turn around and do the exact same thing, you've basically become the very thing you hate and are a murderer your self by accepting the death penalty.

Should the death penalty replace lifetime in prison?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said