The death penalty is a punishment, it is not a deterrent although some folks would have you believe otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Do normal people like to watch?
The (a?) last public hanging.

Kentucky 1936.

The 1936 equivalent of a million views of a TikTok video of torturing cats.

Although I share your disdain for voyeurs, I think this statement is simplistic. If my son was murdered I’d want to watch the murderer die. Additionally, if my son was the perpetrator and received a death sentence, I would go and see him off. And when die, I’d like a witness. It’s not sadism, but closure and respect behind my perspective.

There are many reasons to watch a death aside from immature morbid curiosity. I’d even say a healthy part of maturing is a visceral understanding of death. I certainly stopped a lot of silly and childish talk after the first time I killed someone. Even when they deserve it, in that moment it’s obvious that life is a precious gift from God and we should live better.

The simple fact is that cultures and attitudes change over time. Public executions have always been attended by large crowds as is obvious by other photographs and earlier written descriptions. Part of the reason was no doubt due to the lack of the sorts of innumerable “entertainments” available today. At least one highly-respected early Christian theologian believed that one of the entertainments for souls in Heaven would be looking down and watching those undergoing the torments of Hell.

But it was also widely believed that public executions served as moral lessons and demonstrations of the consequences of evil acts and were therefore supported by civic and religious leaders for that reason. The people who took satisfaction from seeing the bodies of criminals hanging from gibbets were not all psychopaths.

The whole punishment versus deterrence thing is an argument that goes back a long time. More often than not actions taken against criminals have been justified as being intended to deter others from committing the same acts. As one early English jurist (IIRC) put it, “Horse thieves are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses not be stolen”: i.e., to deter horse theft. In a somewhat related vein, the word “penitentiary” comes from the word penitent which referred to the idea that the first institutions were intended to make the inmates see the errors of their ways and leave with changed hearts and minds. Again, it was about changing behaviors, not punishment.

quote:

Originally posted by C L Wilkins:
The death penalty is a punishment, it is not a deterrent although some folks would have you believe otherwise.

I don't know how you can flat out deny that it is also a deterrent, at least to some degree. Of course it doesn't stop murder or senseless killings altogether.

But if I were a young person in that crowd with my father and saw a man hanged, I can tell you it would leave an impression. I would already have been taught that it is wrong to kill but I would see the consequences firsthand... and then I would know that society is serious and that killing will not be tolerated.

Today, society sends the opposite message: that most people will get away with it.

quote:

But it was also widely believed that public executions served as moral lessons and demonstrations of the consequences of evil acts and were therefore supported by civic and religious leaders for that reason.

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by C L Wilkins:
The death penalty is a punishment, it is not a deterrent although some folks would have you believe otherwise.

Well, it certainly does cut down on recividism.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by C L Wilkins:
The death penalty is a punishment, it is not a deterrent although some folks would have you believe otherwise.

Well, it certainly does cut down on recividism.

Capital Punishment only serves as a deterrent if it is:

1). Administered soon after judgement

2). News of execution is broadcast throughout and across general population.

This was clearly criminal justice, not deterrence.

quote:

Originally posted by x0225095:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by C L Wilkins:
The death penalty is a punishment, it is not a deterrent although some folks would have you believe otherwise.

Well, it certainly does cut down on recividism.

Capital Punishment only serves as a deterrent if it is:

1). Administered soon after judgement

2). News of execution is broadcast throughout and across general population.

This was clearly criminal justice, not deterrence.

You may need a dictionary.

Don't like it, it's too easy, they just go to sleep, don't even realize it. I work around N2 a lot, personally knew 2 people that died from it accidently. I was overcome once, didn't even realize it was happening, luckily my coworkers realized what was going on and saved me.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
A large part of the problem seems to be the anxiety associated with anticipation of the event. This could be alleviated in a very humane manner by giving the patient, an anxiety and pain relieving medication’s orally several days prior to the schedule execution. However, the plan would be to give lethal dose of each, and therefore surprise the “executee”, preventing unwanted anxiety. Unfortunately, this would probably only work once.

In Japan, they hang the condemned, although they don't use the death penalty often. They don't give a fixed execution date but surprise the prisoner on the day of the hanging. They also don't have the sort of long delay between conviction and execution we have.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ Same.
Hanging or the guillotine, which are both quick and painless, have the added benefit of being done in public.
The death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent as well as a punishment.

I don't think many are deterred by capital punishment. It doesn't deter emotionally driven crimes, and I don't think it deters murders done during robberies (etc.) as those dopes don't think they are going to actually have to murder anyone. It may deter a few murders such as highly planned, non-emotionally driven crimes.

We think punishment deters, but a lot, if not most criminals, don't think like you and I. They aren't logical thinkers, as a cop I used to know liked to point out to me.

I think the real logic of incarceration or execution is that it removes the criminal from society. Specific deterrence - it deters that guy. Or retribution - pure punishment.

quote:

I think the real logic of incarceration or execution is that it removes the criminal from society. Specific deterrence - it deters that guy.

Yes, Specific deterrence, of course.

I guess what I'm thinking of is a different culture. A culture where a young man would never even think about joining a gang or committing a heinous crime.

The rate of violent crime used to be far less than what it is today, particularly in urban neighborhoods. But I suppose that has a lot more to do with family structure than it does with the death penalty or any other specific form of punishment.

Still, justice should be swift, at least relative to what exists currently. I'm not saying no right to appeal but if it goes on for 30 years the punishment is too far removed from the crime.

quote:

In Japan, they hang the condemned, although they don't use the death penalty often. They don't give a fixed execution date but surprise the prisoner on the day of the hanging. They also don't have the sort of long delay between conviction and execution we have.

All of that sounds better than what we do here.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I don't think many are deterred by capital punishment.

I have long believed that for the reasons given. One commentator about the subject pointed out that when pickpockets were being hanged for their crimes, other pickpockets were working the crowds that turned out to see the executions. Down deep criminals don’t care about the threat, don’t believe that they’ll end up doing something that will subject them to the penalty, or believe they won’t be caught. Regarding the last, long ago the only sort-of mentor I’ve ever had worked for a time as a psychologist at a prison. When he asked one inmate if he would have committed the crime if he thought it was likely he’d be caught, his response was, “Would I put my hand on a hot stove?”

And the resulting lack of deterrence is why many people are opposed to the death penalty when its theoretical purpose is deterrence rather than punishment. Punishment obviously appeals to many other people, but if the fundamental legal theory is that its justified purpose is deterrence which it doesn’t really provide, then whether they admit it or not, those who don’t see its purpose as punishment must logically oppose it. I suspect, too, that such thinking also supports the idea—perhaps unconsciously—that no crimes should be punished: People will do what people will do because they can’t help themselves, and therefore society should just put up with it.

The last is of course an example of very diseased thinking that willfully ignores its consequences. As one atheist author put it, “We may not have free will*, but we must act as if we do.”
* “Free will” meaning that we have total control over everything that affects what we believe and do.

I believe its a farce to have an inmate on death row die of old age

absent an appeal for compelling reasons (and not just stalling for time), sentence should be carried out within 90 days.

What method to use? Whatever works.

It looked like they put a full-face CPAP mask on the guy and hooked it up to a bottle of nitrogen.

I still think he should have gotten the fireplace poker treatment he gave his victim.

I have no problem with punishments and retribution for crimes, but one thing about the death penalty is there is no possibility of, “Oops, we made a mistake; sorry,” once it’s carried out. And anyone who believes that it should be executed immediately after a conviction necessarily assumes that the law enforcement officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges are all competent, honest, and uncorrupted. That assumption seems to be most common in death penalty cases, but is strangely () absent in others, including all the high profile cases against any number of personages in the news these days.

Something to possibly consider.

Why not just drain the guy of his blood? Should be painless and will definitely kill him. No need for a do over. And, if he is healthy and clean, the blood can go to the blood bank. Win Win.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I think the real logic of incarceration or execution is that it removes the criminal from society. Specific deterrence - it deters that guy.

Yes, Specific deterrence, of course.

I guess what I'm thinking of is a different culture. A culture where a young man would never even think about joining a gang or committing a heinous crime.

The rate of violent crime used to be far less than what it is today, particularly in urban neighborhoods. But I suppose that has a lot more to do with family structure than it does with the death penalty or any other specific form of punishment.

Still, justice should be swift, at least relative to what exists currently. I'm not saying no right to appeal but if it goes on for 30 years the punishment is too far removed from the crime.

In point of fact, the overall rates of violent crime have been declining for decades in the U.S. Consult the violate crime statistics.

I know the old saw about "lies, damn lies, and statistics" but this trend is widely recognized.

https://www.statista.com/stati...-the-usa-since-1990/

Also on that page:
*Due to the FBI's transition to a new crime reporting system in 2021, only 11,794 of 18,806 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. reported crime data to the FBI in that year. For 2022, only 15,726 of 18,888 participating law enforcement agencies submitted crime data. As a result, figures may not accurately reflect the total crime rate.

All I can say, is that going into certain areas, particularly in St. Louis City, has a different feel than in 1990.
It just seems more dangerous and I attempt to avoid those areas.

Gas manufacturers will not sell to corrections departments that use nitrogen hypoxia for executions

quote:

(NewsNation) — After Alabama carried out the first nitrogen hypoxia execution, three of the largest manufacturers of nitrogen gas in the U.S. said they will not allow their products to be used for state killings, according to a report released this week.

The Guardian reported three major medical-grade nitrogen gas producers have barred their products from being used in executions by creating protocols that will prevent their nitrogen cylinders from getting to departments of correction in death penalty states.

Companies Airgas, Matheson Gas and Air Products — all major producers of the gas — told the outlet that nitrogen should be used to help lives, not take them.

“Airgas has not, and will not, supply nitrogen or other inert gasses to induce hypoxia for the purpose of human execution,” the company said in a statement to the outlet.

I don't see how this is - or should be - a problem. I see no need for "medical grade" (whatever that is) nitrogen. Just get the apparatus that tire shops use for nitrogen-filling tires, modified with a pressure regulator. Then executions could be carried out in-house.