Sex Offender Registries and Further Punishment: The Thread

[Distind]

That's a tad arbitrary. If you ask me, if the death penalty is to be used, it should be used only when rehabilitation is impossible, either because the criminal is beyond reform or it's simply too great a risk to release them.

Then why not just keep them locked up? What practical purpose does killing them serve that keeping them locked up for life does not?

Denying them the chance of ever committing the crime again. Removing the chance of escape.

Putting a definitive end on their actions.

Notably I'm not saying it should be a standard punishment, but when you come to people like this guy. Flush him.

[JohnE]

Denying them the chance of ever committing the crime again.

Which life without parole also does.

Removing the chance of escape.

Which is miniscule to begin with.

Putting a definitive end on their actions.

Which life without parole also does.

Notably I'm not saying it should be a standard punishment, but when you come to people like this guy. Flush him.

IMO, that makes even less practical sense. Let's say you have two people who've committed terrible crimes and can't be rehabilitated. Both need to be removed from society for good. What's the point of giving one of them life and prison and the other the death penalty, because his crime was worse?

[Distind]

Which life without parole also does.

But he still exists. Why should someone get the right to wake up every morning after they've happily taken it from someone else? Why should his continued existence be allowed to bother the victims and/or their families?

Notably I'm not saying it should be a standard punishment, but when you come to people like this guy. Flush him.

IMO, that makes even less practical sense. Let's say you have two people who've committed terrible crimes and can't be rehabilitated. Both need to be removed from society for good. What's the point of giving one of them life and prison and the other the death penalty, because his crime was worse?

A lack of repentance or remorse. If someone behaves like a rabid dog I see no reason not to treat them that way.

[Auggziliary]

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html

Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.

No one was killed in that case.  Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case.  "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.

Er, why?

[Witchyjoshy]

Why should someone get the right to wake up every morning after they've happily taken it from someone else? Why should his continued existence be allowed to bother the victims and/or their families?

Because emotion should not dictate "justice".

[JohnE]

But he still exists. Why should someone get the right to wake up every morning after they've happily taken it from someone else? Why should his continued existence be allowed to bother the victims and/or their families?

What Magnus said. It serves no practical purpose, only catharsis through violent revenge.

A lack of repentance or remorse. If someone behaves like a rabid dog I see no reason not to treat them that way.

But there's also no practical reason TO treat them that way.

[chitoryu12]

Practical reason? The cost of the state maintaining the person's life for however long they live. The state will need to pay for their food and medical services at a minimum, unless you plan on keeping them in utterly inhumane conditions that no first world country would ever approve of. Assuming Ask Men is correct, a 2008-2009 report by the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that California spends $12,442 per year on each inmate. Some prisoners even get better health care than the guards, since it's viewed as the state's responsibility to care for them if they get sick or injured. $350,000 surgery and all subsequent medical bills? You get that for free as long as you're facing years in prison when it happens.

So let's say that an 18-year-old football player rapes and murders a young girl and gets sentenced to life in prison. If he lives to 72, the state will have paid $671, 868 to care for him. Should he require that $350,000 surgery at any point in his life, that's over $1 million that has been spent to keep him alive and under government care as long as he lives. With the average life expectancy in the United States and the knowledge that the prisoners will get regular meals and proper health care without ever needing to worry about the price, each prisoner who's facing life can easily end up with the state spending hundreds of thousands on them.

Regarding the cost of the death penalty that organizations like Amnesty International mention, they admit that the vast majority comes from the actual case and not the execution. Injecting someone with a cocktail of drugs or shooting him in the medulla is cheap. The expensive stuff is what has to be paid by the state for the trial and pretrial.

[davedan]

Practical reason? The cost of the state maintaining the person's life for however long they live. The state will need to pay for their food and medical services at a minimum, unless you plan on keeping them in utterly inhumane conditions that no first world country would ever approve of. Assuming Ask Men is correct, a 2008-2009 report by the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that California spends $12,442 per year on each inmate. Some prisoners even get better health care than the guards, since it's viewed as the state's responsibility to care for them if they get sick or injured. $350,000 surgery and all subsequent medical bills? You get that for free as long as you're facing years in prison when it happens.

So let's say that an 18-year-old football player rapes and murders a young girl and gets sentenced to life in prison. If he lives to 72, the state will have paid $671, 868 to care for him. Should he require that $350,000 surgery at any point in his life, that's over $1 million that has been spent to keep him alive and under government care as long as he lives. With the average life expectancy in the United States and the knowledge that the prisoners will get regular meals and proper health care without ever needing to worry about the price, each prisoner who's facing life can easily end up with the state spending hundreds of thousands on them.

Regarding the cost of the death penalty that organizations like Amnesty International mention, they admit that the vast majority comes from the actual case and not the execution. Injecting someone with a cocktail of drugs or shooting him in the medulla is cheap. The expensive stuff is what has to be paid by the state for the trial and pretrial.

Yes actually killing people is cheap. But the costs of due  process and the appeals and the stays and requests for clemency that it involves are expensive. More expensive than simply keeping them in prison for life.

Now if you were to go the Chinese method where they can appeal but the sentence won't be stayed (and is usually carried out before the appeal) and you send the family of the executed person the bill for the bullet, well then yes it is cheap. But in the US System keeping them in jail for life is cheaper than killing them.

Apart from the whole "what if we made a mistake" thing, I personally have an objection to the Death penalty. The State says murder is wrong and then commits it. Because make no mistake that is exactly what the Death Penalty is - State sanctioned murder. I want to live in a State that is not murderous. Then again some people think that prison itself is bad and we should be like the Romans, basically monetary penalties or slavery for most things, death for the rest and no prisons at all.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I agree with what others have said about the death penalty being nothing more than an expression of vengeance and nothing more. It serves no practical purpose that imprisonment cannot solve. I'm ashamed that our country still offers this morally backwards punishment. It wasn't even until a few years ago that the Supreme Court decided that executing minors--fucking minors--was unconstitutional. Only a handful of countries including ours have executed children since 1990: Iran, China, DRC, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yeman and Sudan. We also offer the death penalty for drug offenses, and share that honor with Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Vietnam and fourteen other countries.

[syaoranvee]

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html

Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.

No one was killed in that case.  Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case.  "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.

Er, why?

A taking of a life can only be equaled to a taking of a life, want to castrate those guys, cut their balls off, fine.  The death penalty should only be used in the taking of life when a life has been stolen.

Now for the reason I am pro-death:

I don't believe in a afterlife, I believe this there is this life and that's it.  So imagine walking down the street one day, living your normal life and going up to the store a block a half mile away....and then suddenly it's over.  Someone decided your life was worthless in comparsion to your money and credit cards and shot you in the head.  That's overly bullshit for anyone and the fact is, if a person's done it once, they'll do it again.  A person's life who had no reason to die will always outweigh a person who kills them for personal benefit or to get their rocks off.  Killing a murderer insures there will never be any more victims other then the first ones, it's a preventive measure.  I rather look like a monster and save lives in the future then allow these real monsters even the improable chance of them managing to get out and kill again while the highrollers make themselves feel good by not killing them.

[Witchyjoshy]

Yes, please, cite a website that is unashamedly pro-death penalty.

Please ignore all of the innocents that have been executed over the years, including a recent case where circumstances shed light on a situation where a man who was proven guilty of murder was actually innocent, and yet they executed him anyways because they wouldn't even listen.

Please ignore the fact that the death penalty has absolutely no effect on the rate of murder.

Please ignore all of the rehabilitated murderers who did not reoffend.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html

Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.

No one was killed in that case.  Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case.  "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.

Er, why?

A taking of a life can only be equaled to a taking of a life, want to castrate those guys, cut their balls off, fine.  The death penalty should only be used in the taking of life when a life has been stolen.

Now for the reason I am pro-death:

I don't believe in a afterlife, I believe this there is this life and that's it.  So imagine walking down the street one day, living your normal life and going up to the store a block a half mile away....and then suddenly it's over.  Someone decided your life was worthless in comparsion to your money and credit cards and shot you in the head.  That's overly bullshit for anyone and the fact is, if a person's done it once, they'll do it again.  A person's life who had no reason to die will always outweigh a person who kills them for personal benefit or to get their rocks off.  Killing a murderer insures there will never be any more victims other then the first ones, it's a preventive measure.  I rather look like a monster and save lives in the future then allow these real monsters even the improable chance of them managing to get out and kill again while the highrollers make themselves feel good by not killing them.

I should point out that the way to stop murderers from being released is to give them longer sentences and deny them parole. Thus you keep them away from the outside world and don't have to take a life. But otherwise your post really shows what the death penalty is about: revenge. A life for a life. It's an understandable reaction, but merely a visceral one.

[JohnE]

Apart from the whole "what if we made a mistake" thing, I personally have an objection to the Death penalty. The State says murder is wrong and then commits it. Because make no mistake that is exactly what the Death Penalty is - State sanctioned murder. I want to live in a State that is not murderous. Then again some people think that prison itself is bad and we should be like the Romans, basically monetary penalties or slavery for most things, death for the rest and no prisons at all.

The way I look at it is, if someone attacks you with a knife, trying to kill you, you fight back and kill them in the struggle, that's self defense. But if you wrestle the attacker to the ground, disarm him, pin him down so he can't hurt you any more, think about it for a minute, and THEN you kill him, that's murder.

The state using lethal force is similar. If the police kill a suspect who was trying to use kill them or a civilian, that's legitimate use of force. But if they arrest a suspect, convict him, lock him in a prison system from which successful escapes are virtually nonexistent, and THEN kill him, that's not legitimate.

[Auggziliary]

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html

Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.

No one was killed in that case.  Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case.  "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.

Er, why?

A taking of a life can only be equaled to a taking of a life, want to castrate those guys, cut their balls off, fine.  The death penalty should only be used in the taking of life when a life has been stolen.

Now for the reason I am pro-death:

I don't believe in a afterlife, I believe this there is this life and that's it.  So imagine walking down the street one day, living your normal life and going up to the store a block a half mile away....and then suddenly it's over.  Someone decided your life was worthless in comparsion to your money and credit cards and shot you in the head.  That's overly bullshit for anyone and the fact is, if a person's done it once, they'll do it again.  A person's life who had no reason to die will always outweigh a person who kills them for personal benefit or to get their rocks off.  Killing a murderer insures there will never be any more victims other then the first ones, it's a preventive measure.  I rather look like a monster and save lives in the future then allow these real monsters even the improable chance of them managing to get out and kill again while the highrollers make themselves feel good by not killing them.

Bolded part: But why? Like I understand what you're saying, but what is your reasoning?


Eye for an eye isn't really a... "just" way of looking at things. It seems quite barbaric actually... Plus why do you think every murderer is a complete psycho?
Also, putting a serial killer in prison would save just as many victims, so that doesn't make sense.

[Jack Mann]

I believe the ultimate purpose of justice is to make the world as safe for the innocent as possible.  Yes, sometimes that means punishing criminals.  Locking them away where they can't hurt anyone.  But I don't see where killing them serves that purpose.  It doesn't reduce crime rates.  Lock them away forever, it gets the same results.  And if you're wrong, and you kill someone, there's no way to take that back.  And there have been a lot of people on death row who were proven innocent.

It isn't worth it to kill innocent men to try and kill the guilty ones.