It's sort of a useless statement because it costs tonnes of money (bureaucratic backlash, probably) to do it. So no.
I don't agree with life sentences either, though. They are just as bad.
I support it in, albeit only in extreme cases and overwhelming evidence. still, the idea of killing the wrong person makes me second guess myself.
although I dont view the death penalty as a deterrent, or as a means to protect society, but as revenge/justice (i cannot distinguish between the two)
The problem with keeping people in prison seems to be that it is expensive and some even does escape. First of all, if it cost so much to lock them up, why lock them up? Well, they are dangerous people who you say should never come back to society. Anyway, we aren't all mad after birth, there are factors that define who we are, some care about getting a good education and others are forced to murder and other crimes. Some or most of these factors can be changed, for example, if you grew up in a poor family and is therefore forced to perform burglary, get a better education and a real job. The problem is the fact that these people aren't respected, for example if you have been to jail, you will have a lower chance to get a job, even if it was a few years ago.
This system goes hardest on murderers, especially in America; either you get locked up forever in hostile environments or you get killed. The US prison system threat murderers as second class citizens, sometimes animals may come into the comparison because they are not considered intelligent enough to be rehabilitated and reintroduced to society. Let's say you have a bit of a problem with alcohol and may have inhibited too much one day, the next day you find out you've killed your own wife. Now what that would teach you is to go to rehabilitation and never drink again, but according to the American prison system, you are no longer a valid member of society and deserve to die.
What would teach both, would be if you were imprisoned for a temporary amount of time while being rehabilitated by a psychologist. The prison system may still seem hostile, but at least you will not be locked up forever while learning from your mistakes in the same process. Psychology shouldn't be the only service the prison system should offer in my opinion, another one should be rehabilitation to society itself, sometimes you are living in conditions which force you to do crimes to survive, but in most cases those things can be solved with a proper education as well as a motivation pointed towards it. The American prison system's message to criminals is "you shouldn't do it again, or you will loose your freedom", but what it should say is "you know, all this could be prevented and it is not too late to make things right". If you were locked up for something you did, you'd be confused, but if you were locked up and told what you should do, you could learn from it. That is how discipline works and it is something the US is doing horribly wrong, to an extent that it makes criminals hate society even more.
So how does most of that apply to murderers; well, lock them in, tell them what they did wrong and let them out. To some of you, that may sound horrific, you can't let murderers among us. Still, what is the difference between taking someones freedom and taking someones life? With proper rehabilitation, this may work; if you have killed someone, even deliberately, you aren't a killer the rest of your life. The real enemies are the ones who can't be rehabilitated, for example people with schizophrenia. In this case you might as well lock them up forever, unless they could somehow be cured and driven back to society. There is no reason to lock perfectly mental healthy people who have done any wrong deeds up forever, there is even less reason to kill them because of it. If you think there is a difference in killing another person and another person who have done something wrong, then why isn't murdering another person from a gang justified? Is it the killer that is the difference? Does it mean that a normal person killing someone is horrible, but the government doing it is justice? Remember, these are people, not fruit; when you have a good looking apple, you would eat it, but if you had a bad apple, you'd throw it away. What if the apple was just dirty and needed a polish? I mean, it is still eatable.
the definition of justice is largely a matter of opinion, but I sincerely doubt someone who can't distinguish between something that requires a government to be good and something that requires a government to be vindictive can properly judge the value of human life.
Why not to try to rehabilitate the first murder offenders, and send the second murder offenders who can't be rehabilitated to labor camps (ex: uranium mining camps)? These prisoners would not only NOT be spent money on, but produce additional income (as well as cover their own expenses) for the state to reinvest in housing, health care, etc. On top of that, that would reduce the prices of uranium, and lead to a somewhat higher energy generation.
And what if they refuse?
And if you say they can't refuse then how is this any different than slavery?
If they refuse, they would be either given the option of euthanasia, or of penal labor. And there is such a thing as 'not spending money on a prisoner in a first world country'. It's easy. They can simply generate enough income plus a surplus to cover their own expenses through penal labor. The surplus would be invested in health care, education, housing, science and technology. On top of that, the energy costs would go down as those prisoners would mine uranium.
They would be offered a wide variety of 'workplaces', ranging from mining and industrial sectors to service and even science sectors. If they refuse, they would be a second option of euthanasia. They have a choice between dying and not dying.
And also, Japan already has a similar prison system.
And do you honestly trust anyone with a system like this? America can't even get the death penalty done right without killing innocents in the process.
In the end a system that has death as a possible action will need loads of due process of the same nature that the death penalty has to ensure that innocent life isn't ended (or enslaved). I guarantee you no amount of slave labor is going to come remotely close to breaking even with how much the due process will cost.
And I really hope you aren't going to be the second person I've ever argued with over capital punishment who has told me that the solution would be to simply remove due process.
Also, there would have to be a very high degree of evidence of repetitive murder after rehabilitation being presented in order to enroll the prisoner in question in such a program.
And this is hardly new, Japan already has such a system.
The point is this is why I don't support the death penalty, or this slavery enforced by death system that you've come up with. Even with due process mistakes are made.
this is just far, far too convoluted, and the risks are far too great to ever impliment in a just way. would it not be easier, less risky, and less vindictive to put them under house arrest, carefully analyze their psyche, and sort out any outstanding mental issues? it's certainly better than putting people to work in mines or asking them to kill themselves based on what a computer tells you to do.
A repetitive murder offender (who had rehabilitation attempts) with less than a 0.5% of being innocent, would have to work for the society. If they refuse to work, they would be tortured into working (electroshock, water boarding, etc). If they still refuse, they would be placed back in their cell. There would be a limit as to how much they would be tortured, and for how long.
Why are you so adamant in making a system so atrocious just to save money on a handful of criminals?
Gulags made profit which was reinvested. I'm OK with Gulags for repetitive murder offenders, but not for any other types of criminals.
On top of that, Japan already runs such a system, and so does China. The evidence is simply not on your side.
It's the per capita legal worker number which counts, and not the aggregate one. And China has seen lots of improvements in its due process situation. And why are we talking about America? It's not the center of the world. Stop with your nationalistic shit.
are you serious?
But yes, I believe that there should be a system of this kind (like in Japan, for example). If one could gain support to do some utilitarian action by using people's emotions, it should be done. For example, repetitive murder convicts and using the profits off their labor for health care, to save thousands of lives.