On 2013-08-29 03:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I call shenanigans on the idea that life in prison is a worse punishment than the death penalty. Very popular claim among people who haven't been convicted of first-degree murder, but among those actually facing the two options, they overwhelming prefer life in prison, as evidenced by appeals, plea bargains, pleas for "leniency" (I.e. Not death) at sentencing hearings, etc. In fact, one argument for the death penalty is that having it on the table generates life-without-parole guilty pleas. In contrast, very few defendants plea bargain in the hopes of receiving the death penalty instead of life without parole.

On 2013-08-29 03:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I call shenanigans on the idea that life in prison is a worse punishment than the death penalty. Very popular claim among people who haven't been convicted of first-degree murder, but among those actually facing the two options, they overwhelming prefer life in prison, as evidenced by appeals, plea bargains, pleas for "leniency" (I.e. Not death) at sentencing hearings, etc. In fact, one argument for the death penalty is that having it on the table generates life-without-parole guilty pleas. In contrast, very few defendants plea bargain in the hopes of receiving the death penalty instead of life without parole.

On 2013-08-29 10:40, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-08-29 03:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I call shenanigans on the idea that life in prison is a worse punishment than the death penalty. Very popular claim among people who haven't been convicted of first-degree murder, but among those actually facing the two options, they overwhelming prefer life in prison, as evidenced by appeals, plea bargains, pleas for "leniency" (I.e. Not death) at sentencing hearings, etc. In fact, one argument for the death penalty is that having it on the table generates life-without-parole guilty pleas. In contrast, very few defendants plea bargain in the hopes of receiving the death penalty instead of life without parole.

1. Is it even possible under your legal system, in practice, for someone to plea bargain for the death penalty instead of life without parole? Would the prosecutors, lawyers, judges, really be able to do / permit that? (Again, in practice, not in theory.) Wouldn't the defense lawyer be in violation of some professional ethics or something if he negotiated for a harsher penalty, or recommended his client to do so?

2. People selecting between life in prison without parole and the death penalty are really selecting between two unknowns. Many don't really know which one they would prefer, in practice. What they do have are their lawyers (e.g. like yourself) telling them to take life, that it is better.

3. Someone who wants to live free and outside of prison, could still prefer death over true life imprisonment without parole. They may select life without parole over death in the hopes of winning a pardon or being exonerated or of even eventually earning a parole (because of changing laws, a Supreme Court decision, or whatever). In other words, if they knew with 100% certainty that they would never be released from life imprisonment they would prefer death. But if there is even a remote hope they might be freed, they take what they perceive to be the worse punishment (life without parole) because they hope they will eventually be excused from it.

On 2013-08-29 11:29, tomsk192 wrote:
In the UK, parole boards will not consider early release unless the prisoner acknowledges guilt. This means that in cases of wrongful conviction, the falsely imprisoned must admit to the crime which they did not commit, in order to qualify for parole. People confess for all sorts of reasons.

In this case, however, there is no plausible reason to doubt the guilty verdict.

On 2013-08-29 11:42, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-08-29 11:29, tomsk192 wrote:
In the UK, parole boards will not consider early release unless the prisoner acknowledges guilt. This means that in cases of wrongful conviction, the falsely imprisoned must admit to the crime which they did not commit, in order to qualify for parole. People confess for all sorts of reasons.

In this case, however, there is no plausible reason to doubt the guilty verdict.

If that were true (I'm not saying it isn't, or that there IS doubt, just that I, personally, don't know enough to say one way or the other) then that only addresses one possible concern with the death penalty.

There are still SO many others.

On 2013-08-29 12:28, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-08-29 11:42, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-08-29 11:29, tomsk192 wrote:
In the UK, parole boards will not consider early release unless the prisoner acknowledges guilt. This means that in cases of wrongful conviction, the falsely imprisoned must admit to the crime which they did not commit, in order to qualify for parole. People confess for all sorts of reasons.

In this case, however, there is no plausible reason to doubt the guilty verdict.

If that were true (I'm not saying it isn't, or that there IS doubt, just that I, personally, don't know enough to say one way or the other) then that only addresses one possible concern with the death penalty.

There are still SO many others.

Yes, Glenn, I did ask earlier what your views were in terms of the "SO many others".

On 2013-08-29 08:55, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-08-28 16:58, tomsk192 wrote:
What would your other reasons be, Glenn?

While I believe killing in direct self defence is completely justified, similarly, stepping in to directly protect another, in direct threat, would also be justifiable.

However, this is in self DEFENCE, not self "retribution," or self "justice;" it is explicitly for the purpose of stopping someone from killing yourself in the moment. The killing here is not because it is just "punishment" for their attempts to kill you, it is simply because it may have been the only way to stop them and save your own life in that moment.

Killing someone after the fact is nothing but a distorted attempt at revenge. You can try and justify it as preventative of future actions by the person (which means you are punishing them for things they have no done,) or that it is a deterrent to others (which it is undeniably not,) but it is none of these things.

That's not to say that I don't believe there are people who probably deserve to die, or that I don't think the world would be a better place without them, we just don't have the right to make take that person's life.

It also does nothing to "right" the wrong of the crime they committed. Giving the survivors peace of mind is, unfortunate as it is, still revenge based reasoning. Also, their peace of mind is not exclusively obtainable through killing. Not to mention, seeing the perpetrator killed is not even guaranteed to give them any sort of closure. You are then killing a human being in the hopes that it MIGHT make people they harmed feel better.

Now, even I might value the survivor's feelings over the life of a murderer, that doesn't give me, or anyone else, the right to take said life. The ends do not justify the means. The means must be consistent with the ends.

On 2013-08-29 08:55, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-08-28 16:58, tomsk192 wrote:
What would your other reasons be, Glenn?

While I believe killing in direct self defence is completely justified, similarly, stepping in to directly protect another, in direct threat, would also be justifiable.

However, this is in self DEFENCE, not self "retribution," or self "justice;" it is explicitly for the purpose of stopping someone from killing yourself in the moment. The killing here is not because it is just "punishment" for their attempts to kill you, it is simply because it may have been the only way to stop them and save your own life in that moment.

Killing someone after the fact is nothing but a distorted attempt at revenge. You can try and justify it as preventative of future actions by the person (which means you are punishing them for things they have no done,) or that it is a deterrent to others (which it is undeniably not,) but it is none of these things.

That's not to say that I don't believe there are people who probably deserve to die, or that I don't think the world would be a better place without them, we just don't have the right to make take that person's life.

It also does nothing to "right" the wrong of the crime they committed. Giving the survivors peace of mind is, unfortunate as it is, still revenge based reasoning. Also, their peace of mind is not exclusively obtainable through killing. Not to mention, seeing the perpetrator killed is not even guaranteed to give them any sort of closure. You are then killing a human being in the hopes that it MIGHT make people they harmed feel better.

Now, even I might value the survivor's feelings over the life of a murderer, that doesn't give me, or anyone else, the right to take said life. The ends do not justify the means. The means must be consistent with the ends.

On 2013-08-29 08:55, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-08-28 16:58, tomsk192 wrote:
What would your other reasons be, Glenn?

While I believe killing in direct self defence is completely justified, similarly, stepping in to directly protect another, in direct threat, would also be justifiable.

However, this is in self DEFENCE, not self "retribution," or self "justice;" it is explicitly for the purpose of stopping someone from killing yourself in the moment. The killing here is not because it is just "punishment" for their attempts to kill you, it is simply because it may have been the only way to stop them and save your own life in that moment.

Killing someone after the fact is nothing but a distorted attempt at revenge. You can try and justify it as preventative of future actions by the person (which means you are punishing them for things they have no done,) or that it is a deterrent to others (which it is undeniably not,) but it is none of these things.

That's not to say that I don't believe there are people who probably deserve to die, or that I don't think the world would be a better place without them, we just don't have the right to make take that person's life.

It also does nothing to "right" the wrong of the crime they committed. Giving the survivors peace of mind is, unfortunate as it is, still revenge based reasoning. Also, their peace of mind is not exclusively obtainable through killing. Not to mention, seeing the perpetrator killed is not even guaranteed to give them any sort of closure. You are then killing a human being in the hopes that it MIGHT make people they harmed feel better.

Now, even I might value the survivor's feelings over the life of a murderer, that doesn't give me, or anyone else, the right to take said life. The ends do not justify the means. The means must be consistent with the ends.