What's Your View On The Death Penalty?

[Jack]

I have a certain limit, where my conviction fades into a gray zone.

It comes down to:
Keeping an individual inside a locked space, for the duration of his life. This locked space is a waste, the food he eats, every day of his life - is a waste. Medical care and other attentions are a waste.
Mathematically speaking, it's all a huge waste.
We're always talking "worst of the worst" here, serial killers, spree shooters, child rapists/killers, and so on.

The cue should be this: Will we ever be able to release this person, into society, without him commiting similar crimes right away? If the answer is "nope, never." then it should come under consideration, of course along with an evaluation of, well, the "evilness" of a person.

Someone who believes he is Napoleon all his life, and therefore needs to be held in a room, fed, cared for, his entire life, did - after all - not end peoples lives, didn't tear apart some kids butthole, didn't ravage or ruin or destroy what can never be repaired or brought back.

Pain and loss must be taken into consideration.
However, in all of this I am also taking for granted a prison system that works as intended, one where mere druggies aren't gathered up, and where rehabilitation actually has precedence over simply punishing and stowing away.

To be absolutely fair I would consider - as a perfectly legitimate alternative to death, as the utmost penalty - to be banishment. In fact, in viking society, banishment was often used instead of death penalty, and it serves mostly the same purpose - you are left to your own device - see how long you make it, out in the woods, with just your fists and your teeth.

Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.

[Jack]

Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?

Is he physically unhealthy?

['andersom']

Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?

Is he physically unhealthy?

No, he is not.

[ZEGH8578]

I am inclined to think that appeal and other such court costs don't necesarily need to be so high. After all, they consist of mostly fees and stuff, that are set at an arbitrary rate.

Either way, those costs are reality, and they are a good point that I didn't consider.

And yes, banishment is very difficult to pull of in practice, but not impossible! Most countries have a bit of wilderness, and a banished person could be placed in the dead center of such a wilderness, or maybe left on a raft in the ocean, or taken to Antarctica

[Jack]

Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?

Is he physically unhealthy?

No, he is not.

The poor murdering rapist has some mental distress? In a country without death penalty, he should just have to kill himself then. That's a huge precedent they're setting for their society, euthanizing someone for mental illness.

['andersom']

Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?

Is he physically unhealthy?

No, he is not.

The poor murdering rapist has some mental distress? In a country without death penalty, he should just have to kill himself then. That's a huge precedent they're setting for their society, euthanizing someone for mental illness.

Euthanising for mental illness is already happening occasionally. But not for a life long prisoner.

[Jack]

Euthanising for mental illness is already happening occasionally. But not for a life long prisoner.

What type of mental illness?

[Walkie]

Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?

Is he physically unhealthy?

No, he is not.

The poor murdering rapist has some mental distress? In a country without death penalty, he should just have to kill himself then. That's a huge precedent they're setting for their society, euthanizing someone for mental illness.

Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.

The guy has had a miserable life, and, for whatever reason,  he can't help sharing the misery around. Why the heck would people want to propagate that misery? At least this way, people can be absolutely certain  that he'll never be let let out

[Jack]

Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.

Do you mean in Belgium prisons, or in general?

[Jack]

Euthanising for mental illness is already happening occasionally. But not for a life long prisoner.

Am now thinking this isn't really happening. DrunkardsWalk's sympathy for his miserable life made me curious about this poor serial rapist's life, and am finding conflicting articles about the decision. This article is from the same news source as the one you posted, two days later. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11327541/Belgian-serial-rapist-will-not-be-euthanised-as-planned.html

Why the heck would people want to propagate that misery?

Van Den Bleeken's right to euthanasia has been strongly condemned by the family of his victim.

That's seems like a good reason.

[Walkie]

Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.

Do you mean in Belgium prisons, or in general?

In general. I'm assuming Belgium isn't radically different from the rest of the "civilised" world. i'm sure somebody wil correct me, if wrong.

[Jack]

Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.

Do you mean in Belgium prisons, or in general?

In general. I'm assuming Belgium isn't radically different from the rest of the "civilised" world. i'm sure somebody wil correct me, if wrong.

Stats for the US it seems to differentiate largely on the level of incarceration. From a quick look, almost a full third of deaths in local jails are suicide related, while that drops dramatically to 5-6 percent in state and federal institutions. Prisons probably don't really prevent suicide much more than preventing murders. Murder stats inside of prisons are much more interesting though. While figures are very decreased in recent years for both homicide and suicide, still, homicide is one of the best arguments potentially could make pro-death penalty is wishing to truly rationalize my view against granting government that level of power of the people.

[Jack]

Am now thinking this isn't really happening. DrunkardsWalk's sympathy for his miserable life made me curious about this poor serial rapist's life, 

Should have just read the whole article you posted, Hyke, in seeking that information. It was right there and just didn't take the time to read it.

A child from an impoverished background, Van Den Bleeken had a troubled childhood, much of it spent in care, and was raped himself at the age of 15. 

Found this more poignant though.

“Commissions, doctors and experts have spent so long considering the ups and downs of the life of the murderer of our sister,” one, Annie, told a Dutch newspaper. “ In all those years, no committee ever asked our parents or us how we felt.

“No doctor or expert ever came and asked how we were. And then we hear his lawyer on the radio saying how tough it was for him to be abandoned in prison.”

The people making this decision are probably making the right one. If one of the victims family became suicidal due to mental distress, it wouldn't be the state's responsibility to euthanize them; it would be a responsibility to provide mental healthcare, and that's what they're going to do for him.

[Graelwyn]

Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?

To me,  this guy is just trying get an easy way out of living out the rest of his years incarcerated and trapped with the memories of what he did. I agree that he should receive, perhaps, treatment for his mental health issues if legitimate, but beyond that, let him rot. There are many who have had bad childhoods, been abused as children, been raised in poverty, and a large number do not go on to commit atrocities, so I tend to very seldom have any sympathy when that is pulled up as a defense card.

[Walkie]

... let him rot. There are many who have had bad childhoods, been abused as children, been raised in poverty, and a large number do not go on to commit atrocities, so I tend to very seldom have any sympathy when that is pulled up as a defense card.

It's not so much a question of sympathy, but pragmatism. Different people have different breaking points, and nobody can really know what somebody else has endured, so comparisons are petty meaningless. However , I'm pretty sure that once somebody has been pushed past their breaking point, then pushing them further won't mend them, nor mend anything else. It serves no purpose at all, except lust for revenge. From any other point of view, it's counterproductive.

Well, it looks like the victim's family have got what they want, in a way. No execution. But, on the other hand , he will now get therapy; which means that he might just be released, in the long run, doesn't it? I can't imagine they are pleased about that.

Sadly, I doubt that the victim's family will get any therapy, unfair though that undoubtedly is.  I don't know about Belgium, but where I live, the State doesn't have the resources to provide that for ordinary people; not even for ordinary dangerous nutjobs, not until they actually commit a crime.

No, I'm not saying "Don't give criminals therapy"; if prison is really meant to rehabilitate criminals, not just punish them, then it's insane to scrimp on the rehab part of the deal, having paid out all the other, considerable  costs.

It's  just that I can't, for the life of me, buy any "solution" that increases the sum total of misery in the world, never mind if some are judged to deserve it.  Misery is contagious.  And misery can always escape its box, one way or another, even if the miserable person can't.  Misery pays itself forward all the time; and if you pay it back now and then, that doesn't stop the rot. That's what bugs me about this scenario.

If that guy were a savage dog, then the victim's family would want him put down, right away, no messing; they wouldn't sleep soundly til that was done. . They wouldn't want him  stuck in a cage, just  so they could see he was suffering.  What's the big difference?  For some, the difference is some kind of humanitarian idealism that regards imprisonment as the "lesser evil", and that values human life at any cost.  For others, like that family, they clearly believe that imprisonment is the  greater evil, and think that death would be too kind.
They can't all be right, but somehow  they all pull together.

I don't see any point in asking "Who deserves sympathy" ? the criminal or the victim? Everyone in this shit world deserves a bit of sympathy, and it isn't a limited resource.  I just think that whichever  solution cuts down on human misery rather than increasing it, is gonna prove to be the best thing all round. And it isn't too hard to figure out which that would have been, in this case.