h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can only speak of this on a hypothetical level of course, but...

Have you considered the possibility that a lifetime prison sentence is actually a more cruel punishment than a death sentence?

Well, I suppose that would really depend on the conditions of imprisonment. We have a strict policy against "cruel and unusual punishment" (that's not strictly followed).

No one has found a satisfactory solution to the issue of what to do with criminals. Imprisonment as punishment is a fairly recent development. Previously, jails only served to detain criminals until their day in court at which time a punishment would be delivered ranging from monetary penalties, corporal punishment or capital punishment. The Tower of London and the Triple Tree at Tyburn are the ideal example of this.

The modern prison system was developed in the early to mid 19th century. While prisons first got their start in Britain in response to the American Revolution and the loss of Britain's penal colonies; the modern penitentiary system really began in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_State_Penitentiary
Early penitentiaries were dark, cloistered places, lit only by small windows set in the ceiling to represent the Eye of God (or such twaddle). It was a place to do "penance", hence 'Penitentiary'.

Today, while we've abandoned some of the religious ideals, we've kept the basic essence of the penitentiary system of assigning terms and locking criminals away in cells until their sentence is fulfilled. There has been many experiments with "reform" but nothing has really changed the basic prison form.

I've read about some of the luxuries of some Scandinavian prison systems and while it seems indulgent and coddling to American ideas, I can see the merit in focusing more on rehabilitation than punishment. Our US prison system is currently a travesty. We've used the "war on drugs" to justify creating the largest prison system in the world. We imprison more of our population than any other nation in the world. We've made a business out of incarceration and prison labor. And rather than reform, we harden prisoners. It's like Crime College for most of them. And when they get out, their options are so limited that most will probably return to prison.

Ideally, one day some new system will emerge that will be ethical and effective. But who knows what form that might take.

Until then, to answer the question you originally asked, I can see your point. If I was in charge and did away with the Death Penalty, I'd absolutely allow lifers to choose euthanasia.

~*~And rather than reform, we harden prisoners. It's like Crime College for most of them. And when they get out, their options are so limited that most will probably return to prison.~*~

I agree, which is why I asked the question. Furthermore--voluntary euthanasia aside--in the case of the worst criminals (cold-blooded murderers and the like) I'm concerned about the cost of housing, feeding, and guarding people who have obviously already forfeited their right to freedom. And, more importantly, don't feel any remorse over it.

Assuming they're given the death penalty, don't you think they sort of brought it on themselves? Why should society at large be paying to keep them alive when society at large isn't getting anything out of it?



I also agree that rehabilitation is a better ideal, but it does introduce two other (smaller) problems:

1. Following certain crimes, even in cases of genuine reform, could you ever really trust them again?

And

2. What do you do with people who simply refuse to reform?

Life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

Also, the idea of "cold blooded murders" is overly simplistic. There are several types of murderers. For instance, there's murderers who kill out of personal animosity or passion. There are the "cold blooded" assassins of organized crime. There are also the much colder blooded sociopaths who kill because they have no empathy. These are the most justifiable to execute because they are, indeed, unreformable. (Well, those that aren't heads of major corporations or political parties.... nope, those aren't reformable either.) There are also those that murder because they just don't know any better; the mentally incompetent. They don't even understand that they did murder. Then there are the temporarily insane. For instance, the case of Andrea Yates (from my local area). http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates
She drowned her children because of a synergy of her post partum depression and her fundamentalist evangelical beliefs. Does she deserve to die, or would her continued existance punish her more than an early death?

Seriously. It's not a simple moral decision to end the life of another because of their actions. We have to consider the motives of their actions... or, just decide that ending the life of another is not the decision of the state. I'm not saying they should go unpunished, just that I don't condone the ending of a life on my behalf as a member of a society.

That said, I'm pro choice. I'm the opposite of most of my neighbors who support the death penalty, but believe that life begins when sperm touches ovum.


I'm a complex guy.







Oh, and to address your follow up questions...

To both...

I don't know. And no one else does either.

~*~Life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty.~*~

I fail to see how. Logically you can only incur greater costs by keeping someone alive. As far as your link goes, I don't think you can count Amnesty International as impartial. For that matter, they don't provide a source. Worse, they don't tell you how they arrived at those numbers, which are so far divorced from each other that I'm strongly inclined to believe they've been tampered with.



~*~Also, the idea of "cold blooded murders" is overly simplistic. There are several types of murderers.~*~

I know that. I was deliberately speaking of the worst ones because, as you said, they're the most justifiable to execute. I'm not saying it's as simple as crime A = punishment B, just that there are instances where the crime warrants execution. I'm more than willing to listen if you have a better alternative.



~*~Seriously. It's not a simple moral decision to end the life of another because of their actions.~*~

I'm not saying it is, dude. But the difficulty alone doesn't completely remove it from discussion.



~*~That said, I'm pro choice. I'm the opposite of most of my neighbors who support the death penalty, but believe that life begins when sperm touches ovum.~*~

What does that have to do with it?

Death penalty cases have become so complex that they're incredibly expensive. I read a state this week stating that a death penalty trial will cost a DA's office $1-1.5 million what with the research, testing, experts, etc. The trial of Brian Nichols nearly bankrupted the state's public defender system and that jury merely returned a verdict for life without parole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nichols

I see the death penalty as an expensive luxury. Generally, I would support the increased use of the death penalty, but we just can't afford it in these tough economic times. I would only really favor it for cop killings right now.

I suppose you could make an argument that the death penalty cases give you a better chance at justice since every little thing will be disected as the government is blowing $1-3 million.