I am personally 100% against the death penalty. The primary reason is that I don't see the utility in it, and it just seems like an emotional reaction (and I agree with much of the secondary reasoning indicated above). Even *if* you could be 100% certain that a murderer committed the crime; even *if* you could be 100% certain that the murderer had every means available to him to avoid putting himself in a given situation both physically and mentally; even *if* the victim's family was all for it and expressed that it would give them some relief...I think it would be more productive to society to study the mind of the individual in some of these cases (it not most). Not sure how much of that takes place, and/or how much of that could take place, but I think it could be done humanely and provide a much better value to society as a whole. One of the interesting aspects of the Parkland case is assessing how one comes from the mind of a child into the mind of an adult. Why do we say a 10-year old is not accountable (or *as* accountable) for egregious actions, but a 19-year old is? Logically, we can eliminate the development of the brain as being exclusive to age. Inputs matter. At what point between 10 and 19 do we say, "ok, now you've got it...you should be able to figure everything else out now?" Do we need to pass a test for that, or do we all agree that, as a society, 18 is simply that magic age where people just happen to figure it all out? The issue is much more complex than simply "do we know he did it or not?" I appreciate the topic, and I'm always interested in reading the different ways people see this. I think the problem of getting rid of mass shooters is far more complex than simply killing them or banning their weapon of choice. If we really want to fix the problem, we have to be willing to understand why the mind led them to do what they did and see if that path can be corrected for those who may otherwise be headed that way. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
If you read about his history as a child, there were a plethora of signals that he was a damaged child. It wasn't something he would grow out of. We are never proactive as a country, we just expect everyone to be the same and fix it themselves. There are more Nicholas Cruz's out there right now that are not getting the help they need.
I'm sure that barbaric notion has appeal to people who think justice is purely a punitive and retributive thing
Also, if you are a person who believes in the Constitution, "cruel and unusual" punishment would seem to prohibit "creative" justice.
Purpose of a justice system is societal harmony. I think this idea would do an even worse job of accomplishing this than the current one. For starters, how do you "eye for an eye" theft, especially for those who steal but have virtually nothing to their name? More importantly, the less immediate or likely a proposed consequence, the less that consequence incentivizes behavior. Your idea lessens the likelihood of consequence because people would only face consequence if they caused harm. No one speeds at 120 mph on the highway expecting to harm someone. Now you've told them that they'll only face trouble if an outcome happens that they think won't.
I'm not sure if we should use it more or less, but we should use it differently, imo. If the purpose of a criminal justice system is to promote societal harmony, then the death penalty should be used based on severity of crime plus chance of rehabilitation for the convicted. You can't rehabilitate a rabid dog, and you similarly can't rehabilitate a violent sex offender clinically diagnosed with sociopathic behavior. If 2 (or more) independent experts conclude that a convicted criminal is incapable of remorse or rehabilitation, that should be the determining factor in the death penalty, not how horrific the original crime necessarily was. Killing a cop currently is an almost guaranteed death penalty sentence, as is a racially motivated killing. But both murderers could potentially be rehabilitated, regardless of how heinous their crime was. That said, my rubric probably would reduce the overall application of the death penalty.
Yeah, I think for almost all crimes "restorative" justice is a better thing. If you steal, making some kind of payment, act of contrition or community service is better than some sort of retributive act imposed by the state. That's the opposite of an eye for an eye, but it does acknowledge that something was taken and must be given back. Its really only the question of violent crimes where you have to consider a person being dangerous to others. Discarding people, brutalizing them and alienating them from society even after their sentence seems like it would make people more likely to offend again, not less.
If we wish to study the mind/behavior of a monster(mass murderer), I believe, very simplistically, that we will find something they possess in common. These monsters primary issue are almost always that they are unable to connect with their fellow man. The conditions that create this type are likely many. They are broken humans. “Sometimes dead is better.”
The FBI did that. This was how profiling was developed. Its results and application are at best, mixed. At worst its basically pseudo-scientific bunk that makes catching killers even harder.
I can't even imagine the complete soullessness it takes to say you're "all for" expanding the death penalty in the same post where you admit it will result in more innocent people dying. In theory, this may sound great. But in practice, you can usually find experts to say just about whatever you want them to say. This would almost certainly result in the death penalty being just as racially discriminatory and arbitrary, if not more so, than it is now.
I don’t know how to catch them and punish the parents…I was just stating that keeping them alive doesn’t do anything for me. I’m speaking to the mass murderers, not the petty thieves of course. I actually do like community service for the latter.
Same people who fear being falsely accused of racism or sexual harassment and say 'cancel culture' is ruining America and innocent people are like "meh" when it comes to people being wrongly caught up in the system of capital punishment. Seems a little revealing to me.
The main problem with a lot of this is that most of criminal 'science' is far from that. 3 experts in pseudo-science agreeing isn't a better system. The reliance on "expertise" rather than the broad acceptance of doubt and imperfection is the main problem with the system in general.
THIS is a great answer and I see where you are coming from. I will gladly admit that part of my OP is frustration from killers - cold blooded murders - living there life out while others are dealing with the pain, the damage, the hurt, and the loss they caused.
I am not sure this fits into what you are asking, but this thread is about the penal system, death penalty mainly. And so my reply. If we decided to "get it right", I have to believe that, while states have the right to be in charge of what happens within their boundaries and therefore can pass laws that they find capable (without violating the intent of the US Constitution), there MUST be a system where corruption at the state (or even local level) does not mean unnecessary (or unwarranted) incarceration. IMO, what has to happen is for juries to pass judgement, an edict given by the presiding judge, and then the guilty passed on to a federally run penal system. That also includes an instant verification of the process and in the case of the death penalty, making sure that it is administered in a non-arbitrary manner. If it is found that there are sufficient holes in the testimony or whatnot that deserved THE harshest punishment, it is automatically commuted to life without parole. Or, in this instance, it reaches the mandate of death IF that has been the standard. Too much power is placed on some emotional jurors. Otherwise, what you can get is the empty feeling the victims' families feel today. But how about those folks who were executed but were innocent? Those folks are not in fashion today.
To add on to that, what happens to the judge, jury, prosecutor, police officer etc who were involved in the wrongful death of the innocent person? We already know about the police’s less than stellar reputation for planting evidence and working in conjunction with crooked district attorneys and judges to secure a conviction, do all of those parties get put to death too if we find out that an innocent person was killed via death penalty, since they were directly responsible for it? Or do we just have a “Oops, my bad” attitude about it like some folks in here have?
