Having said this, I'm for the death penalty for the following crimes, if they are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (video evidence, bodily fluid DNA match, plethora of independent witnesses):
- Forcible rape (either sex)
- Aggravated armed robbery (which is terrorism)
- Premeditated aggravated assault leading to injury (which is terrorism)
- Kidnapping at gun/knifepoint
- Intentional illicit drug sales to a minor child
- Sex slave trafficking (adults and minors)
* Please note that "terrorism" doesn't have to be political. Many states have laws against "terroristic threats" and "terrorism" (personal); sadly they are not often used.
I know almost everyone here will disagree, but let's be honest here. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand and many other countries have these laws, and while I disagree with them on many points, they deal harshly and swiftly with the dregs of society.
My British uncle has personally witnessed several hangings in England before the death penalty was rescinded. As a senior police officer at the time, he made it a point to witness the hangings of those people whom he brought to justice who received the death penalty. Closure. Let's be honest: If I took months of my life to bring a child rapist/paedophile/killer to justice, I'd want to watch, too. People like that deserve it.
I disagree with lethal injection, firing squad, and gas chamber. They are too expensive and require too much oversight (chemists, European reluctance to sell drugs, doctors, etc.). Hanging is quick and cheap. The Singaporeans do it best.
The state has a right to execute heinous crimes. I think the Saudis have it right when the cut off hands for theft. Note, though, that theft of food, items to help one's family is not given that punishment. Car theft, bank theft, ID theft all warrant something like this in my mind. The West has, in my mind, grown soft. A serious crimes serial thief will continue to steal. A rapist will continue to rape. Paedophiles have the highest repeat rate. Why should I, a law-abiding tax payer have to pay for three hots and a cot for those who deserve the death penalty.
For those crimes warranting the death penalty, and for which there is ZERO doubt, the sentence should be carried out within 24 hours. No family visitation, no last words, nothing. If you are a terrorist, rapist, murderer, sex trafficker, drug dealer, or paedophile, you should receive zero consideration once convicted.
Considering the seriousness of ending someone's life, these cases would need to be 100% airtight. Video evidence, plethora or independent witnesses, DNA evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. If these things are in place, and they are verified by say three agencies: police, FBI, independent lab, then go ahead.
While I see what you're saying, "pedophilia" isn't a crime.
>they deal harshly and swiftly with the dregs of society.
The goal shouln't be dealing with the "dregs of society", it should be dealing with people who have committed crimes, whether they are dregs or not.
>The West has, in my mind, grown soft.
Perhaps because people prefer a "soft" system. I don't see why softness is bad in itself.
>and for which there is ZERO doubt
This is surprisingly rarely the case; in various countries with huge oversight and process, innocents have been killed.
>Why should I, a law-abiding tax payer have to pay for three hots and a cot for those who deserve the death penalty.
Because justice shouldn't be predicated on how costly or cheap it is to carry out. I have trouble understanding why you think it should be. Is justice subservient to the money it costs to carry out? Do you think it should be? And this argument only makes sense if we agree that they "deserve" the death penalty in the first place, which I don't agree with. Because someone deserving the death penalty hasn't been argued for (at least not by you), it's possible for me to agree with you (i.e those who deserve death should get it) while thinking that nobody deserves death.
>The state has a right to execute heinous crimes.
Oh really? The anarchist movement, for example, would disagree with this assertion.
>A rapist will continue to rape.
Is this backed up by empirical data? If it's true, why is death preferable punishment to lifetime imprisonment or chemical castration?
>Paedophiles have the highest repeat rate.
This is only true among a subclass of offenders; since your usage of the term is ambiguous, I'm assuming it also includes people who possess child pornography, but their rates of reoffence are low, and there is no established likelihood of possessors going on to abuse children. (Though possession should still be a crime, of course).
> I'd want to watch, too.
So I really don't understand why you seem to be indulging in such fascist revenge fantasies? It's not healthy.
I also don't get why such people are always obsessed with rape and paedophilia? The latter isn't even crime, btw.
> Aggravated armed robbery (which is terrorism)
Now you're just redefining things. Terror has a definition: to cause terror (fear). Robbery has a different intention (getting something valuable).
> ID theft all warrant something like this in my mind.
Sure. Also breaking the speed limit and taking the express checkout lane with more than 10 items.
How do you know they're dealing with the "dregs of society", and not "here's someone we accidentally caught and killed"?
> I think the Saudis have it right when the cut off hands for theft.
> Why should I, a law-abiding tax payer have to pay for three hots and a cot for those who deserve the death penalty.
Because many do not agree with your views on who deserves the death penalty: note there are many criminals who have done things on your list and not become repeat offenders.
I don't feel sorry for the evil in our society. These people cost us dearly by dint of housing them, feeding them, providing medical care, entertainment. All the while, their dead victims, their raped and permanently-violated victims get no justice other than knowing that the evil person is behind bars. That's not justice. That's sweeping it under the rug and calling it good. It's intellectually dishonest to say the death penalty should not be used for heinous crimes. It breaks the social compact with the victims and society at large.
The theory of the social contract is also a very liberal view.
>All the while, their dead victims, their raped and permanently-violated victims get no justice other than knowing that the evil person is behind bars.
That's the thing, though; justice is qualitative, not quantitative - why would you suppose that knowing the criminal is dead offers so much more solace than knowing they're behind bars? Isn't the whole puzzle and mystery of justice knowing how to balance fairness and the desire for retribution? Why are you assuming that retribution is the only relevant factor here?
>It's intellectually dishonest to say the death penalty should not be used for heinous crimes.
No it's not.
> If you <do bad things>
> If you are convicted of <doing bad things>
You have made many very emotionally charged posts in this thread. Take a rest.
If you are going to execute people for "premeditated aggravated assault leading to injury" (would a high school fight after a football game qualify?),
What keeps people from ramping the crime up into flat out murder? What is the additional negative incentive?
And what paradises those places are!