The death penalty is more humane than life imprisonment, change my view

[kiteinthesky]

This is something I've been thinking about the past few days, and I thought it would stir up some interesting discussion here, so I ask you to examine my point of view and try to refute it if possible. For sake of clarity, I am discussing the situation in the U.S.

I believe the death penalty is a morally acceptable way to deal with people who have been convicted, not for the reasons that are typically stated, but because it is more humane than being thrown in prison.

When anti-death-penalty advocates argue that convicts should be thrown in prison for life instead of executed, they do not acknowledge or recognize the reality of what it is they're asking for. Prisons in the U.S. are hellish, horrid places.

Brutal prison **** is widely known about but rarely if ever taken seriously. Prisoners' stories on the subject are often hard to hear because they're so horrifying. In 2011-2012, 4% of state and federal prison inmates reported being *****. Among prisoners, 2% were ***** by fellow inmates, 2.4% were ***** by staff, and .4% reported incidents by both. [Stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics] Given the nature of that sort of thing, it's likely those numbers are actually much higher because of under-reporting.

Prisoners are also used for slave labor -- prisoners are forced to work for sweatshop wages doing anything and everything. They even build stuff for the military. Corporations will outsource jobs that could otherwise have been done by regular workers for regular wages to these prisons, forcing American workers to compete with not only third-world workers but our own prisoners. Companies that do this include Starbucks, Walmart, AT&T, Chevron, and Bank of America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWxpQ87C4t4
Torture in American prisons is a thing. A terrible, terrible thing. Solitary confinement is a common practice in American prisons and human rights groups including the U.N. have rightly labeled it torture. Solitary confinement is when you are locked completely alone in a cell, with nothing, for 23 hours a day. Guards won't even communicate with you; you get food through a slit in the door if you're lucky. The isolation breaks people mentally and makes them go insane.

(I actually have a bunch more links about this sort of thing but they're all NSFW-NSFL graphic descriptions of the kinds of torture, slavery, ****, etc. I'm talking about, including actual video, so until I get an OK from a mod I'm going to stick with these few news articles and stats I have. Abandon all hope ye who Google this ****.)

You get the point; American prisons are brutal, torturous hellholes. Morally, I can't fathom how forcing people to live like that is supposedly better than simply being executed, because killing is always wrong, the way anti-death-penalty advocates argue. Death, as arguably inhumane as people would argue lethal injection is, at least only involves a couple of hours of suffering at most and then you're dead, and cannot suffer anymore. To sentence someone to life in an American prison is to bring upon that person horrifying and mind-numbing suffering that would last decades. Even if you eventually got out of prison, you'd still have to live with the psychological and physical damage of having been *****, tortured and enslaved for most of your life, where no one will hire you and you even have the right to vote stripped from you because you're a felon. Which forces you to commit more crime, which sends you back into prison to continue the cycle all over again. How is that, in any way, better than death? How could it possibly be any better? Given all I have showed you about the reality of the situation, how can those of you who are against the death penalty truly and honestly say that this is better than death? How?

One could argue that it's better to push for prison reform than to support execution because of this sort of thing, but we have to accept that this is the U.S. we're talking about. Prison reform is highly unlikely to ever happen here in our lifetimes because inhumane treatment of prisoners like this has popular support and because corporations who essentially control the country at this point profit so much from the prison labor. We have to base our moral stances on the present situation and the influence of the past; we cannot base our stances on the death penalty based on some hypothetical future reform that one would want because that's no better than mindless speculating, and doesn't address the situation we're in now. So we are forced to make a brutal choice: either support the death penalty as it is now or support life imprisonment with all of its horrors. And I believe that the death penalty offers greater hope for an end to one's suffering than life imprisonment does, because eventually being killed means you won't suffer anymore, and will ultimately lessen your suffering because you won't live nearly as long as you would if you were in prison for life or released.

I admit that this argument is a subjective moral judgment on my part, though the anti-death-penalty argument that death is the worst thing you can bring upon a person and therefore life imprisonment is always morally better than execution is as well, and I feel I can back up my moral stance better than the anti-death-penalty advocates can theirs. Can any of you refute this? Also vote in the poll and tell us what your choice would be if you had to pick.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Fundamentally, this argument bases itself largely on the concept that death is preferable to life in prison. I'd say that's kind of problematic - for many, this simply will not be true. Using a subjective moral judgment which clearly does not apply to many people (as seen by the fact that so many see being moved from death row to a life sentence as a "win"); using this as a legal maxim is not a good idea.

Beyond that, there's a few other important factors at play here. A death sentence can't be "taken back" after it's executed on; there's a lot more time on a life sentence to deal with. Many people are uncomfortable with trusting the government to murder people. The conviction and execution of innocents, particularly minorities, is a serious issue, and the institutionalized racism in the American legal system leads to some rather horrifying results.

Many countries (mostly more civilized ones) don't have either death or life sentences; they have prison sentences capped at a maximum of around 20 years, followed by psychological evaluation which can lead to another 5 years (and another psychological evaluation et cetera) for violent and criminally insane offenders.

 

[Braydon]

... Slave labor? So wait, you're telling me it's wrong to make prisoners work to pay for their crimes? So what they owe no debt to society for their crimes?


Your point is moot anyway, if most people would rather die than be in prison there's nothing really stopping them from committing suicide, the amount of suicides in prison isn't enough to back up your point.

How exactly do you think prison **** is the US's fault? Prison **** is overwhelmingly inmate on inmate, prison brutality is largely inmate on inmate, the people in maximum security prisons are the reason for these conditions, the only reason prison is getting so much worse is because we are killing less and less of the worst criminals.

The conviction and execution of innocents, particularly minorities, is a serious issue

So it's a bigger issue if an innocent black person dies than if I do? Nice to know. Also, news flash, the amount of innocent people executed is almost null. This guy in your article who was so unjustly killed murdered a police officer.

Many countries (mostly more civilized ones) don't have either death or life sentences; they have prison sentences capped at a maximum of around 20 years, followed by psychological evaluation which can lead to another 5 years (and another psychological evaluation et cetera) for violent and criminally insane offenders.

You mean the vast amount of terrible governments right? First of all that's a blatant double standard since these governments allow law enforcement to kill in defense, why is it right for someone to be killed to protect a officer but not to stop them from killing civilians after getting out of there 20 year sentence?

Second and more importantly, a government should be beholden to it's law abiding citizens, and shouldn't prioritize the lives of dangerous and evil men over the safety of their citizens.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So it's a bigger issue if an innocent black person dies than if I do?

You've completely missed and perverted the point. The system is burdened with racism - black people are far more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime. Skin color shouldn't matter in our justice system, yet African-Americans are up to four times as likely to get the death penalty for the same crime, even after accounting for other factors like past criminal record. This is a serious injustice in the system that needs to be addressed.

Also, news flash, the amount of innocent people executed is almost null.

Right, and the government killing innocent people based on things like eyewitness testimony is a serious issue. Even if the numbers are low. There's an important guiding principle in lawmaking - it is better to let the guilty go than to punish the innocent. This is why we have things like innocent until proven guilty. And you can make reparations for a life sentence on bogus charges. You can let them go, pardon them, pay them for their time. There's no "taking back" a death sentence. The execution of the innocent is a heinous crime for any government to commit, serves no real purpose, and has been abolished by most of the western world.

You mean the vast amount of terrible governments right? First of all that's a blatant double standard since these governments allow law enforcement to kill in defense, why is it right for someone to be killed to protect a officer but not to stop them from killing civilians after getting out of there 20 year sentence?

Okay, first of all, Americans don't get to throw stones about "terrible governments" when it comes to prison systems; your house it not so much made of glass as tissue paper and prayer*. You guys have the largest prison population in the world, a recidivism rate that should give pause (Sweden's is less than half the USA's), and generally focus on exactly the wrong thing: punishing people.

Punishment does not matter. If you punish a criminal, what have you done to make society better? It doesn't work. It's not a strong deterrent to recidivism, as the US plainly shows - the death penalty doubly so. Indeed, the fastest way to ensure that someone breaks the law again is to throw them in prison. More civilized countries with considerably "softer" prison systems do a better job at keeping people out of prison for minor crimes (which is important), reforming criminals, preventing recidivism, and teaching useful skills to the incarcerated. Varg Vikernes was able to record a studio album while in prison for murdering a rival band's guitar player (vikings don't **** around when it comes to black metal), and while that may not be "punishing", the fact that you can continue your career while incarcerated ensures that you still have marketable skills and don't immediately turn back to crime once you get out.

Say what you will about this strategy being "soft" or "weak", it works. The recidivism rate in the nordic countries, with their "softer" prison systems, are phenomenally low. For all the cushy walls and ability to do what you want, the fact is that their methods of teaching prisoners useful skills and not treating them like ****ing animals works, while the American method, which focuses on punishment, torture, and dickishness, doesn't.

What's more, there is not a double standard between killing a dude who is running at you with a knife, and killing a dude who was running at you with a knife but is now handcuffed to the radiator. In the former case, self defense makes ethical concerns secondary - you need to worry, first and foremost, about protecting the lives of the innocent. In the latter case, there's no more case to be made for self-defense. The guy assaulting you isn't a threat any more, and can be dealt with as the need arises.

What's more, there is a system in place to ensure that they don't kill again. In Germany, for example, prisoners are typically eligible for parole from a life sentence after 15 years. However, this is contingent upon the prisoner showing that they are of sound mind, remorseful for their actions, and not a danger to society. Pretty straightforward stuff, which beats the whole "you will never, ever be fixed" approach that the US takes. And you know what? After 20 years of rehabilitation, I'd kind of expect the average person not to kill again. 20 years of American or South African prisons which function under the same model (which, in terms of rehabilitation, are to the Swedish system as Moe's Bar is to Alcoholics Anonymous), and you're more likely to commit violent crime.


This isn't helping.



*(see also: elections, voting rights, civil rights, science education, other eduction, not being a plutocracy, income inequality, health care, mental health care, mental health of presidential candidates, and many, many more subjects where America falls firmly behind much of the rest of the western world.)

Second and more importantly, a government should be beholden to it's law abiding citizens, and shouldn't prioritize the lives of dangerous and evil men over the safety of their citizens.

Hey, I'm with you all the way! Which is why the system we currently have in place is so goddamn broken! It doesn't prioritize the safety of the citizens! Instead, it prioritizes the sadistic, vindictive urges of the citizens with little to no regard for what effects the system has! Who cares that sending people to prison makes the more likely to commit crimes in the future. Who cares that torture and deprivation followed by ostracism and marginalization (hey, there's another way the US fails - in how it treats its prisoners after they leave prison!) is a recipe for disaster? Gotta treat those crims like the crims they are!

Everything about this. Every single thing. Is ****ed. You want to claim that the Nordic system is bad? On what ****ing basis? The lack of charred corpses being carted away from their prisons? The horrible way that they treat murderers as if they were still ****ing human beings who deserve another chance at life? That they don't torture people? The "double standard" between killing in self-defense and killing out of vindictiveness?

 

[Braydon]

First of all, you can't use America as the example for capital punishment or severe criminal punishment at all. For starters the US may have capital punishment but it is at extremely low rate, it's no where near common enough to be a serious deterrent, but this does not invalidate capital punishment as a form of deterrent but only as currently used in the US. More importantly the US is better used as an example for abject failure to enforce laws, using it on the capital punishment side is pretty much the worst light you can shed on capital punishment.


The preferred example for the effectiveness of severe punishments would be Singapore, as it possesses both some of the strictest policies and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Singapore is particularly hard on drug trafficking, despite it's geographic position as a major port in the midst of an area of the world with prominent drug trafficking it has one of the lowest drug usage rates in the world due to their 0 tolerance policy on drug smuggling, if you are caught smuggling drugs in Singapore you will be hanged.

I'm not saying that I would want are laws to be as strict as Singapore's, but it does prove that it works.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

First of all, you can't use America as the example for capital punishment or severe criminal punishment at all. For starters the US may have capital punishment but it is at extremely low rate, it's no where near common enough to be a serious deterrent,

That's going in my "why Europeans look down at America" folder. "No no, deterrents work, it's just that we're not punishing them often or brutally enough". Even if you're right, the solution is not to ramp up inhumane punishments. There are better options.

The preferred example for the effectiveness of severe punishments would be Singapore, as it possesses both some of the strictest policies and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Singapore is particularly hard on drug trafficking, despite it's geographic position as a major port in the midst of an area of the world with prominent drug trafficking it has one of the lowest drug usage rates in the world due to their 0 tolerance policy on drug smuggling, if you are caught smuggling drugs in Singapore you will be hanged.

I'm not saying that I would want are laws to be as strict as Singapore's, but it does prove that it works.

Interesting. Singapore has some noteworthy confounding factors worth mentioning. It's a small city-state, for starters. It's also phenomenally wealthy - the GDP per capita is, depending on who you ask, between $62,000 and $87,000 (somewhere between top 10 and top 3) - but income inequality is fairly low. There's a robust rehabilitation system, and also very importantly, people trust the police and the culture is very much built around this trust. In fact, the country is all-around a shining example of how to do basically everything right. I won't deny that the particularly harsh sentencing laws on drug trafficking leads to a reduction there - why do business in a place where they'll kill you for it - but your own cite doesn't spend much time talking about its harsh sentencing; it speaks far more about preventative societal measures, measures I see as the far more important thing in this case, and a thing that doesn't involve inhumane punishment.

 

[kiteinthesky]

Fundamentally, this argument bases itself largely on the concept that death is preferable to life in prison. I'd say that's kind of problematic - for many, this simply will not be true. Using a subjective moral judgment which clearly does not apply to many people (as seen by the fact that so many see being moved from death row to a life sentence as a "win"); using this as a legal maxim is not a good idea.

Are there any actual statistics on what people would actually choose if they had to? I put in a poll in this thread to try to see what the majority of people on Smashboards would pick so there could be at least some basis for this question to be addressed.

That being said, there is some basis to argue that prisoners would prefer the death penalty over life imprisonment.

Point in fact many prisoners ask to waive their rights to appeals so that they can speed up the process of execution, specifically because they'd rather die than face life imprisonment.

And also because the death sentence allows them to carry appeals up to federal courts where they have a higher chance of getting their conviction overturned.

Here is a case of one prisoner in particular who threatened suicide if he wasn't executed.

Beyond that, there's a few other important factors at play here. A death sentence can't be "taken back" after it's executed on; there's a lot more time on a life sentence to deal with. Many people are uncomfortable with trusting the government to murder people. The conviction and execution of innocents, particularly minorities, is a serious issue, and the institutionalized racism in the American legal system leads to some rather horrifying results.

The racism argument is the only one I could think of that would seriously challenge the argument I came up with. The problem I have with it is that the racists in power who use the legal system to subjugate African-Americans are still just as able to do so with life imprisonment as they are the death penalty, including the decades of torture, suffering, enslavement, etc. I discussed in the OP. To an extent, I believe life imprisonment is even more exploitative than the death penalty being used by racists to get rid of people they perceive as undesirables, specifically because of the prison labor issue and how deeply that sort of thing's been entrenched in American history.

After the end of the Civil War, southern states exploited the line in the 13th amendment that excludes punishment for crimes from the ban on slavery to de-facto re-impose slavery on African Americans. This is the reason why we have laws against loitering and public drunkenness and the like, actually; those laws were passed in southern states to criminalize everything the poor did so they could arrest and imprison as many black people as possible so they could be used as prison slave labor. [Source: Slavery By Another Name, narrated by Laurence Fishburne]

Replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment will not solve the racism problem; in fact it will give the racists who run the prison systems and profit off of them exactly what they want: the ability to re-enslave black people, to torture and subjugate them, and as horrible as the racial bias in death penalty sentences is, ending the death penalty is simply not the answer to the problem. I really wish there was a third option here, but as I said given the political climate of the U.S. the only realistic choices we have are the death penalty or life imprisonment. I do concede that allowing governments to use the death penalty to dispose of people they perceive as undesirables is absolutely horrible and unacceptable. I cannot conscionably approve of what is basically a de-facto prison genocide either. But I don't want people to suffer the unbearable hell of life imprisonment where they'll be enslaved either.

Many countries (mostly more civilized ones) don't have either death or life sentences; they have prison sentences capped at a maximum of around 20 years, followed by psychological evaluation which can lead to another 5 years (and another psychological evaluation et cetera) for violent and criminally insane offenders.

I take issue with this negative labeling you're applying to countries with the death sentence. Just because a country has the death penalty does not mean they are uncivilized and vice-versa; that is exactly the kind of subjective moral judgment I took issue with in the OP in the first place.

Also I will emphasize again that this is the U.S. we're talking about and that kind of prison reform simply isn't possible given our political climate. Too many people profit too much from the prison-labor system and too many people think it's OK for prisoners to be tortured by their own government in the land of the free. It is therefore pointless to discuss how other countries deal with the problem; I'm asking people to address the choice between "life imprisonment as it is now or the death penalty as it is now". Not hopes of how one believes things could or should be. As much as I wish there was a third option available, there simply isn't in the U.S. right now.

... Slave labor? So wait, you're telling me it's wrong to make prisoners work to pay for their crimes? So what they owe no debt to society for their crimes?

Given how much corporations and governments exploit prison labor, how much prison labor competes with the labor of regular American workers, and the fact that prisoners are inherently vulnerable and unable to defend themselves from exploitation and abuse or protect their rights as workers, yes, I do argue that it is wrong to make prisoners work to pay for their crimes. It is an idea that looks good on paper but in practice has caused unbelievable cruelty and harms our economy.

Your point is moot anyway, if most people would rather die than be in prison there's nothing really stopping them from committing suicide, the amount of suicides in prison isn't enough to back up your point.

Not necessarily. Suicide is still one of the leading cause of deaths for inmates, only behind illness including AIDS. It is true that the suicide rates in jails and prisons has been declining, but this is because the prison system tries to prevent prisoners from committing suicide.

In states where prison suicide is going up (which is the case in California and Texas), it's going up because of -- you guessed it -- solitary confinement.

How exactly do you think prison **** is the US's fault? Prison **** is overwhelmingly inmate on inmate, prison brutality is largely inmate on inmate, the people in maximum security prisons are the reason for these conditions, the only reason prison is getting so much worse is because we are killing less and less of the worst criminals.

You're missing the point; the point I was making is that this is happening and it's a widely-known risk when you're thrown in prison (how many "don't drop the soap" jokes have you heard in your life?), therefore it's one of the things that makes life imprisonment worse than death in my mind. Whoever's fault it is is irrelevant to the argument I was making.

Punishment does not matter. If you punish a criminal, what have you done to make society better? It doesn't work. It's not a strong deterrent to recidivism, as the US plainly shows - the death penalty doubly so. Indeed, the fastest way to ensure that someone breaks the law again is to throw them in prison. More civilized countries with considerably "softer" prison systems do a better job at keeping people out of prison for minor crimes (which is important), reforming criminals, preventing recidivism, and teaching useful skills to the incarcerated. Varg Vikernes was able to record a studio album while in prison for murdering a rival band's guitar player (vikings don't **** around when it comes to black metal), and while that may not be "punishing", the fact that you can continue your career while incarcerated ensures that you still have marketable skills and don't immediately turn back to crime once you get out.

This has nothing to do with what I was arguing at all, but I take issue with this. The whole point of having a state is to punish people for doing bad things, and it is a critically important social and psychological need that a state needs to fulfill for society to function. Without any form of punishment you are giving people the message that they can do what they want to others and get away with it, and you create a climate where it is not criminals who are responsible for the effects their actions have on others but their victims. Being assured that if someone harms you, they will suffer negative consequences for their actions is a basic human need. For a state or organization to not impose a suitably severe negative consequence on someone, preferably a permanent one, depending on the severity of the crime damages victims and the community around them in permanent and insidious ways. This is especially prevalent in sexual assault cases where assailants statistically have an extremely low chance of being convicted for what they did, the community turns against the victim and the victim is pressured or bullied into forgiving the crime and/or recanting their statements to shield the assailant from punishment. That kind of anti-punishment mentality poisons a community, it turns the community into a place that condones and protects such behavior, and puts everyone who lives there at risk of being assaulted at any time with no recourse whatsoever.

Other countries, despite their emphasis on rehabilitation, still do punish people for doing bad things. They still imprison people which is inherently a punishment, such as it is there.

Point in fact you've used Singapore as your example of a "shining city on the hill" in your posts while not acknowledging that Singapore is the way it is specifically because they have such a strict and rigid system of punishment, which includes caning people for minor offenses.

It's just absurd to argue that punishment does not matter. It matters to everyone.

 

[Braydon]

Interesting. Singapore has some noteworthy confounding factors worth mentioning. It's a small city-state, for starters. It's also phenomenally wealthy - the GDP per capita is, depending on who you ask, between $62,000 and $87,000 (somewhere between top 10 and top 3) - but income inequality is fairly low. There's a robust rehabilitation system, and also very importantly, people trust the police and the culture is very much built around this trust. In fact, the country is all-around a shining example of how to do basically everything right. I won't deny that the particularly harsh sentencing laws on drug trafficking leads to a reduction there - why do business in a place where they'll kill you for it - but your own cite doesn't spend much time talking about its harsh sentencing; it speaks far more about preventative societal measures, measures I see as the far more important thing in this case, and a thing that doesn't involve inhumane punishment.

While there's no doubt that America's failures are not simply the result of lenient penalties, there are cases where increased penalties and capital punishment could help. Yes I get that it's a bigger issue that we have a failing police system, we should have police that can be trusted, that don't shoot random black people, that are useful for something besides harassing drivers on the interstate, but just because we have bigger issues doesn't mean it wouldn't reduce crime if we increase the penalties for certain crimes.

I'd also like to add that Sweden is not exactly a hotspot for gang activity, so their recidivism rate should be much lower. Someone in prison for one isolated act of violence is much easier to rehabilitate than someone in for a much more serious crime. You're not going to have a high recidivism rate with gang members, members of cartels, or other serious criminals like serial killers. It's also much more dangerous to the general population to release these criminals. I'm not trying to say that America has a good recidivism rate but comparing us to Sweden isn't exactly fair.

Giving certain crimes the death penalty would make the country safer, things like, multiple homicide, major smuggling (large quantities of drugs or arms), serious sex crimes (pedophiles, murder-rapists).

@ kiteinthesky
Your sources are far from proving that a significant amount of people would prefer the death sentence, and one of your sources shows the statistics on suicide, they're not that high, which backs up what I said, not many of them actually want to die.

The amount of people who contemplate suicide is also much higher than those who would actually try to take their life as well so your poll is inaccurate.


Prisoners are exploited? Exploited for slave labor? They don't even pay for themselves. Did you even think to google how much was made off of these poor exploited criminals? It costs taxpayers $31,286 per inmate. They aren't even made to work enough to pay for the cost of imprisoning them, much less for the damage they cause society.

 

[kiteinthesky]

@ kiteinthesky
Your sources are far from proving that a significant amount of people would prefer the death sentence, and one of your sources shows the statistics on suicide, they're not that high, which backs up what I said, not many of them actually want to die.

The amount of people who contemplate suicide is also much higher than those who would actually try to take their life as well so your poll is inaccurate.

Suicide in prison is a complex issue with a lot of nuanced factors that go into it. Too nuanced and complex, in fact, for anyone to honestly argue that if something was worse than death then one would immediately and successfully kill themselves when reality doesn't work that way. There are a myriad of different factors that go into why people choose to kill themselves, such as availability of the means to do so which are often lacking in prisons, suicide rates among violent vs. non-violent offenders, and underreporting. Underreporting of prison suicides is a big problem due to racism, the desire to avoid litigation, and the like:
Source: http://www.jaapl.org/content/34/2/165.full
And that's not counting attempted suicides that fail.

People choose to live in situations they perceive as worse than death, situations that make them wish they could die for a multitude of reasons, that does not mean those situations aren't worse than death or that death wouldn't be an act of mercy for them. By your logic every terminally ill person who wanted to die but didn't kill themselves, for whatever reason, must deep down inside have thought that their situation was better than death, and we know that's not true. Therefore your argument is a hand-wavey dismissal and a cop-out.

Prisoners are exploited? Exploited for slave labor? They don't even pay for themselves. Did you even think to google how much was made off of these poor exploited criminals? It costs taxpayers $31,286 per inmate. They aren't even made to work enough to pay for the cost of imprisoning them, much less for the damage they cause society.

Yeah, they're exploited for slave labor. Often they work for rates as low as 23 cents an hour and rarely get to keep the money they make. Some straight-up don't work for anything and are forced to under threat of losing privileges or punishment. That's slavery to me. Did you know that corporations that accept prison labor get 40% of the wages they have to pay prisoners back as reimbursements from the state, out of that taxpayer money you cite?

This is slavery we're talking about. Yes that is worse than death. And no, it should never be acceptable regardless of what someone does in a land that calls itself free; slavery is inherently antithetical to this country's values, prison slavery damages our economy and it gives the state undue power over its people in a way the death penalty could never hope to achieve. For crying out loud, at least the death penalty can be done out of mercy and the desire to humanely bring an end to prisoners' suffering, what you're arguing is to support perpetuating what is basically a 1984-esque situation where you could be *****, tortured, and enslaved at the whim of the state. I'd take being killed over that any day. I don't see how anyone else couldn't.

"[/SIZE]Budget Player Cadet_"]Say what you will about this strategy being "soft" or "weak", it works. The recidivism rate in the nordic countries, with their "softer" prison systems, are phenomenally low. For all the cushy walls and ability to do what you want, the fact is that their methods of teaching prisoners useful skills and not treating them like ****ing animals works, while the American method, which focuses on punishment, torture, and ****ishness, doesn't.

I have a question about this if you don't mind me asking. It is fair to argue that the U.S.'s punitive justice is less effective than other systems. And you argue that the system that Nordic countries use which focuses on kind treatment and rehabilitation is more effective. But hard-lined death penalty advocates can and do argue that it would also be just as effective to simply kill off everybody in prison for serious crimes, and in principle they would be right -- if the U.S. system was changed to require that all felons were to be executed quickly and within the year, it would cut recidivism rates and would get rid of the threat of criminality death penalty advocates perceive exists, simply because they'd all be dead. If they're dead, they can't commit more crime and can't suffer anymore.

But that comes back around to the point I was making in the first place, that the death penalty is more humane specifically because it ends prisoners' suffering, stops them from being tortured and exploited, and prevents the cycle of recidivism that destroys living felons' lives. So my question is (well, I have a bunch of questions really): why would what you want, the Nordic model, be better than simply executing all felons like the hard-liners want, who then by extension couldn't suffer anymore which is what I want? Isn't the situation in the U.S. way too vastly different from that in Nordic countries for something like that to work? Hasn't the damage already been done for most felons and prisoners? How could you possibly think that those sorts of people, or anyone who gets wrapped up in the legal system for that matter, would trust the state who has subjugated them their whole lives if it should ever claim it wants to rehabilitate them? Are you aware of the controversies surrounding the U.S. legal system's attempts to implement therapeutic justice already? Don't you think it's immoral to essentially brainwash a person for 20 years as opposed to simply killing them and sparing them any more pain?

 

[Samal Lord]

Let them live in prison for a specified amount of time, ask if they would rather die or live there for the rest of their life. Unless, of course, that's giving them too much freedom. Another thing to take into account is that there are some criminals who enjoy prison life, which can be for various reasons, but mostly from being in a gang. As someone else said, it's up to the prisoner as to which option is preferable.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This has nothing to do with what I was arguing at all, but I take issue with this. The whole point of having a state is to punish people for doing bad things, and it is a critically important social and psychological need that a state needs to fulfill for society to function.

That's a phenomenally narrow view of the government's role in society, and a massive overstatement of the importance of punishment. There are all manner of jobs the government can and reasonably should take care of - health care, roads, etc. - and punishment is only important insofar as it serves as an effective deterrent. An individual's vindictive anger and wrath is not a valid societal goal, and seeking out revenge is not healthy for anyone's emotional state.

Without any form of punishment you are giving people the message that they can do what they want to others and get away with it, and you create a climate where it is not criminals who are responsible for the effects their actions have on others but their victims.

And what if rehabilitation of the criminal works better? Perhaps I stated my case too strongly. Punishment is, to some degree, a necessary element of rehabilitation, and a necessary "minimal deterrent" on a societal level is a good thing. But how you structure this punishment is another story. Many would argue that the prisons in Sweden are hardly punishment at all.

Being assured that if someone harms you, they will suffer negative consequences for their actions is a basic human need. For a state or organization to not impose a suitably severe negative consequence on someone, preferably a permanent one, depending on the severity of the crime damages victims and the community around them in permanent and insidious ways. This is especially prevalent in sexual assault cases where assailants statistically have an extremely low chance of being convicted for what they did, the community turns against the victim and the victim is pressured or bullied into forgiving the crime and/or recanting their statements to shield the assailant from punishment. That kind of anti-punishment mentality poisons a community, it turns the community into a place that condones and protects such behavior, and puts everyone who lives there at risk of being assaulted at any time with no recourse whatsoever.

Yeah, I'd like to see a citation on any of this. Much of it seems intuitive, but intuition is not a good judge of the truth value of a claim.

Point in fact you've used Singapore as your example of a "shining city on the hill" in your posts while not acknowledging that Singapore is the way it is specifically because they have such a strict and rigid system of punishment, which includes caning people for minor offenses.

I didn't acknowledge that because it's not evident. Does it help? Maybe, but in the report Braydon linked earlier very firmly places the thanks for that not on the punishment but on citizen activism and societal issues.

While there's no doubt that America's failures are not simply the result of lenient penalties, there are cases where increased penalties and capital punishment could help. Yes I get that it's a bigger issue that we have a failing police system, we should have police that can be trusted, that don't shoot random black people, that are useful for something besides harassing drivers on the interstate, but just because we have bigger issues doesn't mean it wouldn't reduce crime if we increase the penalties for certain crimes.

It doesn't mean it couldn't, but I'd like to see some actual evidence that that would be the case. Remember, what we're proposing is an increase in the punitive system somehow. Longer sentences cost more money. Corporal and capital punishment should be avoided because they are generally inhumane, and we know at least in children that corporal punishment doesn't help. Any solution has non-trivial costs involved, so it would be good to see solid evidence that this would really help.

I'd also like to add that Sweden is not exactly a hotspot for gang activity, so their recidivism rate should be much lower. Someone in prison for one isolated act of violence is much easier to rehabilitate than someone in for a much more serious crime. You're not going to have a high recidivism rate with gang members, members of cartels, or other serious criminals like serial killers. It's also much more dangerous to the general population to release these criminals. I'm not trying to say that America has a good recidivism rate but comparing us to Sweden isn't exactly fair.

I think I found some halfway decent numbers on that.

https://www.academia.edu/1116898/Managing_prison_gangs_Results_from_a_survey_of_U.S._prison_systems

Furthermore,surveys from the American Correctional Association reported aver-ages of 11.7 percent security threat group (STG) members in 2003,and 13.8 percent in 2008 (Hill, 2004, 2009).
​

I'm not entirely sure of the mathematical extrapolations one should make based on that. However, there are gangs in Sweden, but I couldn't find any numbers on them. I don't run in criminology circles particularly much, which makes the empirical end of this topic a little difficult to handle; if you have any numbers that would be pretty cool.

Giving certain crimes the death penalty would make the country safer, things like, multiple homicide, major smuggling (large quantities of drugs or arms), serious sex crimes (pedophiles, murder-rapists).

And I'd like to see evidence that this is the case.

I have a question about this if you don't mind me asking. It is fair to argue that the U.S.'s punitive justice is less effective than other systems. And you argue that the system that Nordic countries use which focuses on kind treatment and rehabilitation is more effective. But hard-lined death penalty advocates can and do argue that it would also be just as effective to simply kill off everybody in prison for serious crimes, and in principle they would be right -- if the U.S. system was changed to require that all felons were to be executed quickly and within the year, it would cut recidivism rates and would get rid of the threat of criminality death penalty advocates perceive exists, simply because they'd all be dead. If they're dead, they can't commit more crime and can't suffer anymore.

And you know what? They're not wrong. Just like the guy who thinks it would probably be better for the other species if we exterminated all human life isn't wrong; he's just an asshole. Completely ignoring the moral considerations of the issue doesn't help anyone. Slaughtering felons indiscriminately ignores multiple concepts in criminal justice, including humane punishment (murder is simply not humane, I'm sorry), tailoring the punishment to the severity of the crime (if you knew the death penalty was awaiting you for ****, then killing any witnesses cannot possibly make your punishment more severe, it would simply make it harder for you to get caught), and any hope of rehabilitation.

But that comes back around to the point I was making in the first place, that the death penalty is more humane specifically because it ends prisoners' suffering, stops them from being tortured and exploited, and prevents the cycle of recidivism that destroys living felons' lives. So my question is (well, I have a bunch of questions really): why would what you want, the Nordic model, be better than simply executing all felons like the hard-liners want, who then by extension couldn't suffer anymore which is what I want?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why haven't you killed yourself? You seem so preoccupied with the idea that people might suffer in the future, and it would just by better off if they didn't have to suffer through this, so we should kill them. Why haven't you killed yourself? Is it because you think you'll never suffer? Or because, at some level, you understand that life is generally worth living, and that even though you suffer, there are things that are still good and worth living for? This whole line of argumentation is bull****, I'm sorry. Most people, even in really rough situations, don't want to die. You think slavery is worse than death? Good for you, I disagree. And it should be my choice because it's my life, not yours or anyone else's. Simply because you believe it would be more humane to kill someone in that situation does not mean that they agree, and I don't give a **** about your opinion on their life.

Evidence has already been presented that most people in prison still see life as worth living. Suicide rates in prison are higher than in the general populace, but not significantly so. We're talking about 11 per hundred thousand versus 16 per hundred thousand for federal prisons and 50 per hundred thousand for normal jails. That's not even an order of magnitude higher. Even if it's underreported, by how much? An order of magnitude? Two? And what about confounding factors, such as the increased likelihood of mental illness? No matter how hard you stretch this, the fact is that the vast majority of people consider life in prison preferable to death.

Isn't the situation in the U.S. way too vastly different from that in Nordic countries for something like that to work? Hasn't the damage already been done for most felons and prisoners? How could you possibly think that those sorts of people, or anyone who gets wrapped up in the legal system for that matter, would trust the state who has subjugated them their whole lives if it should ever claim it wants to rehabilitate them? Are you aware of the controversies surrounding the U.S. legal system's attempts to implement therapeutic justice already? Don't you think it's immoral to essentially brainwash a person for 20 years as opposed to simply killing them and sparing them any more pain?

Wow, dude. That's really, really ****ed-up.

"Is it more moral to try to rehabilitate a criminal into an active member of society, or to kill them?"

...Well, the former. Obviously. Calling it brainwashing misses the point of a correctional institution entirely. The purpose here is to ensure that when they get out, they are no longer a danger to society. And we aren't talking about Clockwork Orange-level **** here. We're talking about things like making sure prisoners learn useful skills, helping them find jobs after they get out, ensuring that society doesn't treat them like monsters or broken people, that they aren't forced into a situation where their only option is to go back to crime.

And yes, this is going to be difficult. Most things worth doing usually are! But to give up, to say "oh, we can't because we're too far gone"... I'm sorry, that's a bull**** cop-out. Especially when we're talking about something as important and as fundamentally broken as the American correctional system. I have never seen a more twisted, bizarre moral compass on this forum. You need to think long and hard about what it is you're advocating, because it takes a lot at this point to shock me, and this did the trick quite effectively.

 

[kiteinthesky]

That's a phenomenally narrow view of the government's role in society, and a massive overstatement of the importance of punishment. There are all manner of jobs the government can and reasonably should take care of - health care, roads, etc. - and punishment is only important insofar as it serves as an effective deterrent. An individual's vindictive anger and wrath is not a valid societal goal, and seeking out revenge is not healthy for anyone's emotional state.

No, it is the truth, historically and politically. The state have and can take on other functions, that is true, but its primary and main role has always been to maintain a monopoly on violence, be the sole arbiter of grievances and punish offenders. This is a fact that has been clear since even ancient Greek times and was written about in works such as Aeschylus's "The Orestia", which is a three-part series laying out the argument against revenge and for the state. It's been the founding basis of human societies throughout our history, societies that have been cruel, societies that have been humane, all of them require a state that is the sole arbiter of grievances and that metes out punishment to those that harm its members. Without that ability (especially its monopoly on violence) the state couldn't fulfill any of the other duties it has taken on over time such as levying taxes, building roads, and the like.

And labeling people who quite rightly demand that the state fulfill this purpose as vindictive and angry is a cheap smear tactic typical of anti-death-penalty advocates, is condescending, is patronizing, is anti-victim, alienates everyone else and does not serve discussion at all. People, especially crime victims, are not evil because they wish to see offenders punished, people who disagree with you are not evil, and like it or not suffering for bad things one has done is the integral cornerstone of justice. Not every instance of the state hurting someone to punish them for a crime is bad, and not all suffering should be avoided. It would be very unjust to force people to live in a system where their evil acts wouldn't have any kind of negative impact on their life, and it would be bad for everyone. There is nuance in this discussion and to argue that all harm and suffering is wrong is just as unjust as saying it should be dealt out without restriction.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but why haven't you killed yourself? You seem so preoccupied with the idea that people might suffer in the future, and it would just by better off if they didn't have to suffer through this, so we should kill them. Why haven't you killed yourself? Is it because you think you'll never suffer? Or because, at some level, you understand that life is generally worth living, and that even though you suffer, there are things that are still good and worth living for? This whole line of argumentation is bull****, I'm sorry. Most people, even in really rough situations, don't want to die.

The reason why I haven't killed myself and have no desire to do so is because I'm not in jail or prison. If I ever am, you can bet bottom dollar that I most certainly would try to kill myself with whatever means are available, because I would know the horrors that lay ahead and would not want to suffer them. The truth is, you're right, I'm not suicidal and my life is very much worth living right now, but one of the big reasons why that is is because I'm not in jail or prison. Just because my life is worth living right now doesn't mean that anyone who is incarcerated would think theirs is; that's entirely an individual judgment. You can't just try to use me, someone who is clearly not locked up, as anecdotal evidence to prove how everyone in prison feels. I don't represent absolutely everybody, no one does.

It is also pretty baseless to argue that most people in really rough situations don't want to die. I have shown several pieces of evidence that many prisoners would and do want to die.

I have also addressed the "if death was preferable to life in prison, every prisoner would commit suicide!" argument when Braydon made it; please read my refutation in my posts therein.

You think slavery is worse than death? Good for you, I disagree. And it should be my choice because it's my life, not yours or anyone else's. Simply because you believe it would be more humane to kill someone in that situation does not mean that they agree, and I don't give a **** about your opinion on their life.

But didn't you just try to use me as an example in your previous paragraph to argue that most people don't want to die, implying that if I feel a certain way that must mean everyone else does?

You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but that doesn't mean your opinion -- or mine, for that matter -- is an objective fact and not an unfalsifiable subjective moral judgement. And vice-versa, just because you believe it is more humane to allow someone to be tortured in what is arguably one of the most brutal prison systems on the planet does not mean that they agree or wouldn't rather die. Any argument you can make that I am trying to impose my choice on everyone applies just as much to yours.

Wow, dude. That's really, really ****ed-up.

"Is it more moral to try to rehabilitate a criminal into an active member of society, or to kill them?"

All straw-manning aside, I don't believe my statement is quote-unquote "****ed up", I believe it is a very valid question. That's essentially what you're arguing should be done to prisoners. Forcing therapy on people against their will is unethical. You want to put them in a system where they will systematically have their personality, identity and their belief system changed to conform with the society they're supposed to be released in, regardless of whether they agree with the values of that society (which they very well could not and is probably the reason why they're in prison, especially with drug offenders). Those things make up who a person is; if you change that, you are essentially killing that person. There's no moral difference between the two.

...Well, the former. Obviously. Calling it brainwashing misses the point of a correctional institution entirely. The purpose here is to ensure that when they get out, they are no longer a danger to society. And we aren't talking about Clockwork Orange-level **** here. We're talking about things like making sure prisoners learn useful skills, helping them find jobs after they get out, ensuring that society doesn't treat them like monsters or broken people, that they aren't forced into a situation where their only option is to go back to crime.

Well, no. Let's take a look at the word brainwashing. It means:

a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.

What happens in the U.S. where this debate is relevant is that offenders are often threatened with jail, prison or death if they do not accept a plea deal that forces them to go to a therapeutic program that forces the participants to adopt an approved mindset, often against their will. If they're already in jail or prison access to privileges is often dependent on their participation in such programs. Especially Alcoholics Anonymous, which is a religious organization whose 12-step program converts its participants to Christianity, violating the religious freedom of the offenders sent there. There is nothing voluntary about any of this, and given the reality of the horror those people who are forced to join are threatened with if they do not submit, there is no way anybody with any sense can say this is nothing more than coercion, abuse and by definition brainwashing. "We will bully you into accepting our belief system or we will have you tortured, ***** and enslaved" is brainwashing. Period.

We are very much talking like quote-unquote "Clockwork Orange level ****" here because that's how that sort of thing has manifested in the U.S. and how it will stay; the U.S. is not Norway and will never be like Norway no matter how much we'd like to imagine it could be, so if you want to argue for implementing rehabilitation and therapeutic justice in the U.S., you have to accept it as it is, and if you do, you are justifying these consequences.

EDIT: You know what? In a way, I do kind of believe that death would be preferable to that. What the U.S. does with therapeutic justice is destroy offenders on the inside and replaces who they were with the state's values, and that is the most vile, insidious thing you can do to a person.That's no better than having an institution like the Ministry of Love like in 1984. The political and ethical problems with so-called "therapeutic justice" in the U.S. are enormous and can cause problems for any number of legal and political issues. I can't fathom how death could be worse than that, especially if you're forced to participate in prison or as a condition to avoid incarceration. I should've put this in the OP, now that I think about it. :/

And yes, this is going to be difficult. Most things worth doing usually are! But to give up, to say "oh, we can't because we're too far gone"... I'm sorry, that's a bull**** cop-out. Especially when we're talking about something as important and as fundamentally broken as the American correctional system. I have never seen a more twisted, bizarre moral compass on this forum. You need to think long and hard about what it is you're advocating, because it takes a lot at this point to shock me, and this did the trick quite effectively.

Morality is a very subjective thing and we can argue all day about whose moral compass is twisted and bizarre. The reality of the situation is that this is how things are done in the U.S. and your ideal, that things be done the way it is in Nordic countries, will never happen because the U.S. has a completely different culture than those countries and has a completely different political and economic situation than they do. And given our culture and climate, it is much more of a cop-out to dismiss the brutal choice we're left with with arguments such as "Well, Norway does this!" as if it applies when it does not, and you don't understand that because the U.S. is the way it is, when it does stuff like tries to implement therapeutic justice and rehabilitation, it does so in the most mind-numbingly horrifying way possible, and if you want to have this discussion, this is the realm you're going to have to deal with.

I admit that my opinions on the matter are a lot different than others, I even admit that finding American therapeutic justice so horrifying that I see death as being better than it is extreme, but I asked for people to give actual good reasons to refute my arguments and so far you haven't been doing that. You've just been using emotional appeals such as shock and disgust to try to shame me, under the presupposition that your stance is correct, without explaining why it is that I should feel the way you think I should. And I really wish you would, because I'd really like meaningful reason to reconsider my thoughts other than "You don't think the way I do, that makes you evil! You're a horrible monster unless you agree with me!".

 

[Deleted member 269706]

I honestly think this is one of those issues where the choice is different for everyone. Certain people would prefer to live on, even if the rest of their life was spent in misery. They would rather live, lament, and/or dream than just have it all end right then and there. Others would rather cut the crap and just end their lives. Skip the pain and hell that would come from it. Personally, I would prefer the latter, but I know that not everyone thinks like me. I think some people would definitely prefer life to death, even in that situation, whereas others would prefer death to life. In a perfect world (or the closest thing to that) I think the inmate should reserve the right to choose. Obviously, this isn't the case, nor will it ever be. Bottom line is, you can't just generalize the fate of an entire group of people and say that one outcome is better than another for all of them (the survey results in the poll of this thread is proof of that).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And labeling people who quite rightly demand that the state fulfill this purpose as vindictive and angry is a cheap smear tactic typical of anti-death-penalty advocates, is condescending, is patronizing, is anti-victim, alienates everyone else and does not serve discussion at all.

I'mma just let the irony sit here and marinade a little bit.

People, especially crime victims, are not evil because they wish to see offenders punished, people who disagree with you are not evil, and like it or not suffering for bad things one has done is the integral cornerstone of justice.

I never said they were evil. I will, however, contest that punishment and suffering are integral cornerstones of justice, or indeed needed. We need some form of prevention and some form of rehabilitation. Punishment is one option. It's not the only option, and simply punishing for the sake of punishment accomplishes very little.

The reason why I haven't killed myself and have no desire to do so is because I'm not in jail or prison. If I ever am, you can bet bottom dollar that I most certainly would try to kill myself with whatever means are available, because I would know the horrors that lay ahead and would not want to suffer them.

Congrats, that's you. Now how do you reckon that this extrapolates to the entire prison population?

It is also pretty baseless to argue that most people in really rough situations don't want to die. I have shown several pieces of evidence that many prisoners would and do want to die.

How many? What percentage? That article specifically deals with death row prisoners, and specifically on the first page with those who were explicitly seeking death. What's more, death row conditions are not representative of prison conditions as a whole. I offered the statistic that actual prison suicide rates were not considerably higher than the norm. And while some of that may be accounted for by heightened security, how much? Remember, you're trying to make the case that the death penalty is more humane than life imprisonment... Yet most of the people whose lives are at stake would disagree with you.

I have also addressed the "if death was preferable to life in prison, every prisoner would commit suicide!" argument when Braydon made it; please read my refutation in my posts therein.

I read your refutation, I found it incredibly unconvincing. Look, I'm not asking for every prisoner. I'm asking for a significant attempt rate. You know, something like 10%. You're several orders of magnitude short.

You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but that doesn't mean your opinion -- or mine, for that matter -- is an objective fact and not an unfalsifiable subjective moral judgement. And vice-versa, just because you believe it is more humane to allow someone to be tortured in what is arguably one of the most brutal prison systems on the planet does not mean that they agree or wouldn't rather die. Any argument you can make that I am trying to impose my choice on everyone applies just as much to yours.

Which is why I actually, you know, brought some statistics to bear. You haven't. You have offered no evidence that more than a tiny minority of prisoners want to kill themselves rather than go through prison.

All straw-manning aside, I don't believe my statement is quote-unquote "****ed up", I believe it is a very valid question. That's essentially what you're arguing should be done to prisoners. Forcing therapy on people against their will is unethical. You want to put them in a system where they will systematically have their personality, identity and their belief system changed to conform with the society they're supposed to be released in, regardless of whether they agree with the values of that society (which they very well could not and is probably the reason why they're in prison, especially with drug offenders).

This is called reform. It's a fundamental part of any modern prison system. It's not brainwashing, it's not forcibly changing a person, and the fact that you brought up Alcoholics Anonymous as an example shows how hyperbolic you're being.

Especially Alcoholics Anonymous, which is a religious organization whose 12-step program converts its participants to Christianity, violating the religious freedom of the offenders sent there.

Have you ever been to an AA meeting? I have issues with sentencing people to AA, mainly because it is not sectarian, but the idea that it's some brainwashing institution, and the idea that it converts people to Christianity, are both wrong.

You're using some very confusing and muddying language. Prison is not torture. Therapy for mental disorders is not brainwashing. You're trying to trump everything correctional up as though it was destroying a person, but it isn't. All of this conflating serves to try to paint the concept of correctional institutions as far more brutal and amoral than they are, and to try to show that death is the more moral option. I reject the concept that changing a person's personality in some aspect or other is equivalent to killing them.

 

[Braydon]

@ kiteinthesky
Budget beat me to it but, you haven't showed that anything near a majority prefer death.

Also if working without pay is always slavery and evil I'd like to hear your opinion on court ordered community service. Is that an abomination against freedom as well?


@ Budget Player Cadet_
Here's a question you'll have trouble answering, if it's rehabilitation, and not punishment that stops crime, then why is it that they don't have much smuggling? Singapore is ideal for smuggling not as a destination, but geographically because it is a major port along smuggling routes. The people smuggling would be almost exclusively foreigners, which means the rehabilitation system and culture of Singapore wouldn't have an effect on them. Smugglers aren't part of their culture, and they would never have been through the rehabilitation process seeing as how smuggling drugs is a death sentence in Singapore.

By process of elimination, the penalties must be working. The penalties are protecting the citizens, and should stay in place.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ Budget Player Cadet_
Here's a question you'll have trouble answering, if it's rehabilitation, and not punishment that stops crime, then why is it that they don't have much smuggling? Singapore is ideal for smuggling not as a destination, but geographically because it is a major port along smuggling routes. The people smuggling would be almost exclusively foreigners, which means the rehabilitation system and culture of Singapore wouldn't have an effect on them. Smugglers aren't part of their culture, and they would never have been through the rehabilitation process seeing as how smuggling drugs is a death sentence in Singapore.

By process of elimination, the penalties must be working. The penalties are protecting the citizens, and should stay in place.

I did not say that punishment is useless (actually, I did, but then softened my stance considerably, because, well, that's kind of a stupid thing to think), and in the case of smuggling, it may indeed play a large role. If you have the equipment to lead any sort of serious smuggling operation, you're in a position where you're not struggling at the margins to survive, and in that situation, if one country will straight-up kill your ass for it and another will simply charge you with a few years in prison, it's pretty clear that you'd want to stay away from the former. However, I would be very careful generalizing from "smuggling" to "all crime".

 

[Braydon]

I did not say that punishment is useless (actually, I did, but then softened my stance considerably, because, well, that's kind of a stupid thing to think), and in the case of smuggling, it may indeed play a large role. If you have the equipment to lead any sort of serious smuggling operation, you're in a position where you're not struggling at the margins to survive, and in that situation, if one country will straight-up kill your *** for it and another will simply charge you with a few years in prison, it's pretty clear that you'd want to stay away from the former. However, I would be very careful generalizing from "smuggling" to "all crime".

Yes but you maintained that rehabilitation was significantly more important than punishment, so I had to point out that smugglers wouldn't go through rehabilitation, so it was probably punishment making the difference, not the rehabilitation.

And I never generalized between smuggling and all crime, I grouped it in with major crimes, multiple homicides and the like.

 

[kiteinthesky]

I'mma just let the irony sit here and marinade a little bit.

I have not intentionally labeled you as anything negative throughout this debate. If I have, please point it out.

However, one of the main arguments you have brought forth, one anti-death-penalty advocates typically bring, is negative labeling, especially the argument that anyone who wants to see people punished is "vindictive" "angry" "vengeful", "they want revenge", etc. It is a kind of ad-hominem attack that does not serve discussion at all and will not convince me. I'm asking to be convinced. Stating that your position is superior and anyone who disagrees with it is "vindictive" is not a convincing argument.

Which is why I actually, you know, brought some statistics to bear. You haven't. You have offered no evidence that more than a tiny minority of prisoners want to kill themselves rather than go through prison.

I read your refutation, I found it incredibly unconvincing. Look, I'm not asking for every prisoner. I'm asking for a significant attempt rate. You know, something like 10%. You're several orders of magnitude short.

Very well

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 1406 executions were performed in the U.S. since 1976. 141 of those executions were voluntary. Meaning ~10% of all executions since 1976 were voluntary, meeting your threshold.

These numbers were from the ABC news article I cited in my last post that went ignored.

Yeah, I'd like to see a citation on any of this. Much of it seems intuitive, but intuition is not a good judge of the truth value of a claim.

This is probably getting way off-base but for the example I used, sexual assault, it's pretty clear there is a marked and pervasive climate of injustice surrounding the issue. Sources:
97 out of every 100 rapists never receive punishment
Prison **** often goes unpunished, while we're at it

Have you ever been to an AA meeting? I have issues with sentencing people to AA, mainly because it is not sectarian, but the idea that it's some brainwashing institution, and the idea that it converts people to Christianity, are both wrong.

It is very much a religious institution that converts its participants to Christianity as a part of the treatment program, and since this is usually done under threat of jail or imprisonment (or in prison where you could violate parole if you don't comply), I argue that it is in fact brainwashing.

Let's have a look at the actual twelve steps AA members are required to complete:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

The Christian god is directly referenced in five of the twelve steps, including the capitalization of the title "God" and referring to this deity with the capitalized "Him" which is how the Christian god is written in the bible. Step 11 demands that participants pray to him for crying out loud. The first step demands that participants give up power and agency over their own lives. Step three demands that they turn over this agency over themselves to this "God" character. It says specifically to "turn our will and our lives" over to this character.

There is no way any reasonable person can look at this and not think "Oh yeah, that's conversion to Christianity right there" and then conclude that forcing people to complete an AA program will force them to convert to Christianity, violating the first amendment and their religious freedom.

Atheists have sued over this making that very claim and won.

Several court cases have established a body of evidence that A.A. and the like do try to force participants to convert to Christianity and are therefore unconstitutional.

You're using some very confusing and muddying language. Prison is not torture. Therapy for mental disorders is not brainwashing. You're trying to trump everything correctional up as though it was destroying a person, but it isn't. All of this conflating serves to try to paint the concept of correctional institutions as far more brutal and amoral than they are, and to try to show that death is the more moral option. I reject the concept that changing a person's personality in some aspect or other is equivalent to killing them.

Just folding your arms and declaring "I reject your argument" isn't helping discussion at all and is basically just trying to dismiss any opposition or challenge to what you clearly want us to believe. Which is kind of disheartening.

Please tell me what part of my argument is confusing and muddying and I'll do my best to clarify it for you. Actually I'll try to clarify my argument now:

I affirm the concept that changing a person's personality, up to and including their religious beliefs, under threat of jail or imprisonment, is for all intents and purposes brainwashing.

Definition of brainwashing:

From webster.com:
n.1.the process of forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs.

From dictionary.com:
a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.

1. A person is, fundamentally, their mind and not their body -- this includes their personality, belief system including religion or lack thereof, that sort of thing.
   1. You can't just be your body. If you were, then twins would share the exact same personality, but twins who grew up in the same home under the same circumstances still have different personalities.
2. Therefore changing someone's personality is turning them into someone else, killing the person that used to occupy that body of theirs.
   
3. Therapy does in fact make long-lasting changes to patients' personalities.
4. Courts send offenders to therapeutic programs that violate their religious freedoms, and change their personalities to conform to what the courts want them to do, usually based on whatever it was they were convicted of.
   1. For example, if someone got a DUI, they'd be forced into a program like A.A., or if they got a drug conviction, to something like Narcotics Anonymous which is a clone of A.A., which I've already shown violates people's religious freedom.
5. Courts do this often against offenders' will, under threat of imprisonment, if they don't complete the program.
6. Prison, at least in the U.S. is in fact torture.
   
7. Therefore courts are trying to change offenders' personalities against their will under threat of what is essentially torture, a forcible indoctrination into a new set of beliefs.
   
8. Therefore by the definitions I posted (especially the webster.com one) it's brainwashing.

And it is as simple as that.

This is called reform. It's a fundamental part of any modern prison system. It's not brainwashing, it's not forcibly changing a person, and the fact that you brought up Alcoholics Anonymous as an example shows how hyperbolic you're being.

Yes it is brainwashing and if I'm being hyperbolic about it, then certainly the atheists who have sued over it and the courts who have agreed with them must be as well. It is morally repugnant to change someone's personality against their will, it is heinous, it is insulting to the offenders you wish to help, it denies them their agency and their autonomy as human beings, it is based on the fundamental lack of respect you want to see fixed, it is antithetical to what makes us human.

I don't think you understand what it is you're asking of us and I don't think you've put in the research about A.A. and the reality of therapeutic justice in the U.S., and I implore you to do so before you argue that this is how things should be done in the states.

I never said they were evil. I will, however, contest that punishment and suffering are integral cornerstones of justice, or indeed needed. We need some form of prevention and some form of rehabilitation. Punishment is one option. It's not the only option, and simply punishing for the sake of punishment accomplishes very little.

Well, you have argued repeatedly that they are vindictive with the implication that they are evil. Though after all of this I disagree that "simply punishing for the sake of punishment accomplishes very little." As we have seen here, I can compare punishment (for sake of argument I'm going to talk about humane punishment here and not the torture-exploitation hellholes we call U.S. prisons) to the court-ordered brainwashing you are proposing as an alternative and argue quite handedly that punishment serves two purposes:

1. It attaches a negative consequence to certain actions, which is not only important for disincentivizing the action (and prison recidivism statistics don't change the fact that this is a pretty large factor in whether people commit crimes or not -- if you don't believe me go ask around and see how many people would commit certain crimes if there was no fear of punishment), it is important for everyone else, because it is a fundamental expectation of a government to impose that and its primary purpose.
2. And it does so in a way that maintains an offender's agency. Because all that's being done to you is some sort of infliction of harm and not a deliberate attempt to change who you are, you can still comply with the punishment and maintain your belief system and your personality in the face of your opposition. You can't say that about the U.S.'s court-ordered brainwashing you apparently want which specifically deprives people of that.

Just because you're viscerally horrified at the death penalty does not mean that ALL punishment should be done away with or that ALL punishment is evil or that it serves no practical purpose when it clearly does. Just because those purposes are moral or intangible doesn't mean they don't affect people in profound ways which is what makes them practical. I think you're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I am personally horrified at the way the U.S. legal system is but that doesn't mean that I disagree with the basic premise that people ought to be punished for doing bad things.

As for punishment being an integral cornerstone of justice, well, it is, that's just a fact. That's literally what justice is. It's always been axiomatic like that. I think what you mean to argue is whether it should be that way which falls outside the scope of this debate. For most people even if there was rehabilitation involved, it would be a small part of setting things right and the larger part is holding an offender accountable and inflicting negative consequences on them that will affect their lives without violating their agency or deliberately changing who they are as a person, and I personally believe that that is better and ultimately more humane than "rehabilitation", at least how I have shown it is in the U.S.

Also if working without pay is always slavery and evil I'd like to hear your opinion on court ordered community service. Is that an abomination against freedom as well?

I would agree that court-ordered community service is a kind of slavery, yeah. It's forced labor without pay regardless of how innocuous it may appear.

I have asked around about the whole issue and lots of responses I've gotten argue that it is just for prisoners to work to make restitution for their crimes and to their victims. And superficially, it makes sense in terms of community service, however as I've shown prison labor in practice is so horrible that I cannot with any conscience say that it's OK to make anybody, including prisoners, work against their will for little to no pay. That is by definition slavery, and should be absolutely unacceptable in a free country. Especially for the convicted, who by their very nature are inherently vulnerable to victimization and abuse because at that point the legal system can do pretty much whatever it wants to them up to and including jail time if they don't comply. There's no way a system like that couldn't be abused (as we've seen in prisons very brutally). So as good as it may look on paper to the general population, I do not agree with court-ordered community service either.

 

[Braydon]

I would agree that court-ordered community service is a kind of slavery, yeah. It's forced labor without pay regardless of how innocuous it may appear.

I have asked around about the whole issue and lots of responses I've gotten argue that it is just for prisoners to work to make restitution for their crimes and to their victims. And superficially, it makes sense in terms of community service, however as I've shown prison labor in practice is so horrible that I cannot with any conscience say that it's OK to make anybody, including prisoners, work against their will for little to no pay. That is by definition slavery, and should be absolutely unacceptable in a free country. Especially for the convicted, who by their very nature are inherently vulnerable to victimization and abuse because at that point the legal system can do pretty much whatever it wants to them up to and including jail time if they don't comply. There's no way a system like that couldn't be abused (as we've seen in prisons very brutally). So as good as it may look on paper to the general population, I do not agree with court-ordered community service either.

What? Okay first of all, you're not agreeing, because it's a rhetorical question and I'm no where near crazy enough to think it's slavery.

You bring up what happens in prison as a point against community service... It's not the same thing you can't say your prison argument works against community service even if it did make sense. How could brutality in prison justify removing community service?

I don't see how someone can think killing someone is a morally acceptable form of punishment and at the same time think community service is a moral abomination.

 

[kiteinthesky]

What? Okay first of all, you're not agreeing, because it's a rhetorical question and I'm no where near crazy enough to think it's slavery.

You bring up what happens in prison as a point against community service... It's not the same thing you can't say your prison argument works against community service even if it did make sense. How could brutality in prison justify removing community service?

Because even though the circumstances and implementation are different, they are still ultimately the same thing: forced labor without pay, which is literally the definition of slavery. I don't want to see that kind of thing implemented anywhere regardless of the circumstances or how innocuous community service may be. People, unless they want to volunteer somewhere, should be compensated with fair wages for their work and never forced to. Ever. It is too easy to exploit, too easy to abuse, and on principle I see being forced to work without pay regardless of the circumstances as worse than death and therefore wrong. Call me an abolitionist I guess.

I don't see how someone can think killing someone is a morally acceptable form of punishment and at the same time think community service is a moral abomination.

It's because I see death as an act of mercy and enslavement, torture, **** and the like as some of the worst things one can do to people. I believe in the adage "There are many things in life so much worse than death". It's a subjective value judgment and a matter of opinion as you can see in the poll.

I suppose you could point out many problems with that viewpoint but I can point out many problems with the opposite viewpoint that all death is bad, too.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Definition of brainwashing:

1. A person is, fundamentally, their mind and not their body -- this includes their personality, belief system including religion or lack thereof, that sort of thing.
2. Therefore changing someone's personality is turning them into someone else, killing the person that used to occupy that body of theirs.

I never realized everything in reality is killing and brainwashing all of us from the moment of birth until the moment we die.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'll probably come back to this at some point and make a more substantial response, but...

I never realized everything in reality is killing and brainwashing all of us from the moment of birth until the moment we die.

...This. You've stretched your definitions so broadly and vaguely that they're essentially meaningless. If a twelve-step program counts as brainwashing, then I no longer care about your definition of brainwashing nor find brainwashing under that definition problematic.

 

[kiteinthesky]

I never realized everything in reality is killing and brainwashing all of us from the moment of birth until the moment we die.

Forcible change of one's attitudes and beliefs against one's will under threat of being thrown in a brutal prison system does not happen to all of us from the moment we're born 'til the moment we die, no.

You are right in that people are changeable and that's an important part of living life, but that change is voluntary. It is something we decide for ourselves. And not done under threat. And the beliefs we adopt aren't shoved down our throats. When it's against your will, when a different set of attitudes, beliefs, and the like are forced on you under threat of great harm as what happens with several facets of human society including religious organizations, cults, forced therapy that is usually court-ordered, and the like, it is killing a person in a way, because that's all a human being really is.

I probably should've qualified premise #2 as "against one's will" in the first place but the later premises cover that quite well I believe.

I'll probably come back to this at some point and make a more substantial response, but...

...This. You've stretched your definitions so broadly and vaguely that they're essentially meaningless. If a twelve-step program counts as brainwashing, then I no longer care about your definition of brainwashing nor find brainwashing under that definition problematic.

Then you don't really care for the facts of the matter and the reality of the situation. Those programs are brainwashing and have been rightly called to task by atheists and others who have sued them for good reason, and just because you don't want to believe it does not change the fact that it is. I ask you to actually read the sources I provided and research the matter before blithely and baselessly dismissing the claim.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Reality and everything constituting it is constantly forming my mind whether I give consent or not. Even our bodies unconsciously dictate who we are as well. The rules of government, whims of the economy, and expectations of our culture are not of my own design nor to my liking but exist as something that I have to adapt to all the same. Children live with their parents, but do the wills of each always align? This explains our teenage years so much. They said I was being hyperbolic when I cried they were ruining my life, but all this time I was right!

You're getting far too philosophical with your legal definition of a person: what makes up our beliefs, thoughts, attitudes, etc. are incredibly transient and complex, you do NOT want to go down that slippery slope. Everything and everyone would be guilty of murder by default because all things that come into relation with an individual's senses automatically could be considered through technicality to enter the incredibly amorphous and deep concept of one's being. This entire idea is almost like an amusing piece of satire of the legal system lol. No amount of redefining it will help. It'll just create countless loopholes and ridiculous lawsuits over people looking at something and saying "Nah, [and therefore I'm being brainwashed]."

 

[kiteinthesky]

Reality and everything constituting it is constantly forming my mind whether I give consent or not. Even our bodies unconsciously dictate who we are as well. The rules of government, whims of the economy, and expectations of our culture are not of my own design nor to my liking but exist as something that I have to adapt to all the same. Children live with their parents, but do the wills of each always align? This explains our teenage years so much. They said I was being hyperbolic when I cried they were ruining my life, but all this time I was right!

You're getting far too philosophical with your legal definition of a person: what makes up our beliefs, thoughts, attitudes, etc. are incredibly transient and complex, you do NOT want to go down that slippery slope. Everything and everyone would be guilty of murder by default because all things that come into relation with an individual's senses automatically could be considered through technicality to enter the incredibly amorphous and deep concept of one's being. This entire idea is almost like an amusing piece of satire of the legal system lol. No amount of redefining it will help. It'll just create countless loopholes and ridiculous lawsuits over people looking at something and saying "Nah, [and therefore I'm being brainwashed].

Well, sensory input is recorded and interpreted by your brain and you make conclusions about the world based on that information you're provided, it doesn't forcibly change your beliefs and attitudes against your will on a human level the way that organizations like cults, religious groups, and from what I argued court-ordered programs like A.A. that are forced upon you by the U.S. legal system do.

Looking at a sunset on a beach can't forcibly convert you to Christianity -- you can look at it and use it as evidence in your mind to form the argument that the natural beauty of the world can only be explained by creation by the Judeo-Christian god, but the sensory input itself can't do that because you have to interpret it and come to those conclusions on your own. Human organizations can brainwash you into being Christian (or adopting whatever belief they want) by using force, the threat of force, psychological techniques, and the like to override your ability to do that and turn you into what they please. You can argue that you can eat some poisonous plant that could permanently change your brain chemistry causing similar effects, but even that wouldn't fit the definition of brainwashing unless another human being forced you to eat that plant because the definition of the word brainwashing requires that there be deliberate use of force or the threat of force involved, something that only humans can do.

Even when living with your parents you run the risk of having to deal with them trying to deliberately brainwash you by the definition of the word, especially if you're a teenager who comes out as an atheist or LGBT. If you have looney fundamentalist parents, they really will take your things, threaten you, beat you, or send you to facilities where you will be tortured and abused, to brainwash you into being straight or religious!

I guess this is falling outside of the scope of the debate at hand but if I may ask, since you disagree with the premise that all you are is your personality, beliefs, attitudes, etc., what do you believe makes a person, themselves? Do you believe that you are your body? Do you believe that you are your brain (which is the premise that modern psychology is based on and that I would personally agree with)? Do you believe you are your heart, your lungs, whatever? Are you religious and believe that you are a soul that is independent of your own body? If someone's mind was uploaded onto a supercomputer and the body destroyed, and that mind ran the computer the way it did the physical brain and could interact with the outside world on a human level, would that be that same person?

 

[Troll Man]

If they figure out you were innocent it won't help very much if you're dead, the more humane thing to do is to make sure that if such a thing were possible, we keep them alive.

Besides that, life in prison and the death penalty are equally inhumane. One just leaves room for less error...
Other than the fact that I don't want the state being able to decide who lives and who dies.