The least cruel method of execution?

Frank, you seem to assume that perfect incapacitation (through means of the death penalty) is justified for prisoners convicted of capital crimes. Yet that is, at this point, an unsupported assumption. Your task, then, is to explain why it's necessary to resort to capital punishment to achieve a level of incapacitation that we don't insist upon for any other crime.

Now, I for one believe that our interests (and our humanity) are better served by accepting some small continuing risk from these persons, rather than taking their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that IF we wish to be completely and permanently safe from someone, excuting him or her is the absolute best solution.

After all, remember that I'm arguing that death penalty proponents should favor more brutal and cruel methods of execution, which would necessarily entail the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. So "inhumane" forms of incarceration are largely irrelevant to the argument.

And, as I mentioned before, if there is ever a question of which type of punishment is worse -- incarceration or death -- the proper response would be to let the prisoner decide which punishment to endure.

Your point, though, is that no method of incarceration can guarantee that a prisoner, convicted of a capital crime, won't commit another crime. I'll grant you that, but at what point are we entitled to insist upon that guarantee? Certainly, capital punishment would also end the criminal careers of habitual rapists, arsonists, check-forgers, burglars, and marijuana growers. Yet we don't extend capital punishment to these types of crimes, even though, in these instances, the permissible goals of incarceration/incapacitation are imperfectly met as well.

If incapacitation can be achieved in a manner short of execution, the state is obliged to choose that method.

Anyone who argues that execution should serve the goal of incapacitation must provide additional justification (as I have explained in detail before) why capital punishment is needed.

Frank, you seem to assume that perfect incapacitation (through means of the death penalty) is justified for prisoners convicted of capital crimes. Yet that is, at this point, an unsupported assumption. Your task, then, is to explain why it's necessary to resort to capital punishment to achieve a level of incapacitation that we don't insist upon for any other crime.

As you may have noticed, I'm trying to clean up my act a bit.

Every once in a while I allow myself to slip into the "mad dog attack" mode -- and just fire away at anyone willing to stand and be shot at. But that ends up costing me debating points -- and to voluntarily be counterproductive makes no sense.

So I have grabbed onto the reins -- and I'm doing my best to keep things under control.

Which is a round about way of saying that I am staying clear of the thing you and Joe have brewing.

But I have never bought into your arguments with regard to this -- not even slightly. In fact, I see absolutely no compelling arguments that would lead one to suppose that in order for a death penalty proponent to be consistent -- he/she must also favor more brutal and cruel methods of implementation.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that much of the motivation for my advocacy here in this tread stems from a "devil's advocate" position, I honestly and truly do think that life in prison (especially under the severe conditions that would make harming guards or other prisoners unlikely) is much, much, much more inhumane than execution.

I also SUSPECT that many on death row feel that same way.

You seem to be supposing that death row inmates would rather live life out in prison rather than diej. But I've read that much of the appeals agenda for death row inmates is not a product of the prisoners themselves -- but comes from anti-capital punishment advocates doing it, at times, against the prisoners will.

But I THINK the truth on this question would surprise you.

Quote:

If incapacitation can be achieved in a manner short of execution, the state is obliged to choose that method.

Sez who?

Quote:

Anyone who argues that execution should serve the goal of incapacitation must provide additional justification (as I have explained in detail before) why capital punishment is needed.

Sez who? Why is "need" so compelling -- and where is it written that "need" must be established before being able to use it?

[Murder, for instance, is a unique crime. It robs the victim of his/her life.

Deterring a murderer is a more compelling undertaking of society (government) -- and it can be argued that whatever means insures that a person, once convicted of murder, not be able to murder again.

Capital punishment does that job.

Incarceration doesn't! N'est ce pas?

In order to justify the use of capital punishment, the state must aim at achieving a goal that can only be accomplished through the act of execution (and, to anticipate your next question: sez me, several times, re-read my previous posts).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

If incapacitation can be achieved in a manner short of execution, the state is obliged to choose that method.

Sez who?

Sez me. Several times. Re-read my previous posts.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

Anyone who argues that execution should serve the goal of incapacitation must provide additional justification (as I have explained in detail before) why capital punishment is needed.

Sez who? Why is "need" so compelling -- and where is it written that "need" must be established before being able to use it?

Sez me. Several times. Re-read my previous posts.

...imprisoning them for life and studying them in an effort to understand them.... if we can
understand what makes them, we can one day prevent monsters from being created in the first place.

I used to buy into that kind of logic Bill, but I had a professor make a very good point to me about a year and a half ago that changed my position. In order to truly prevent the most crimes of that nature in the future, we need to understand what turned these people into the monsters they are in the first place. Thus, we shouldn't be executing them, but imprisoning them for life and studying them in an effort to understand them. Hopefully, if we can understand what makes them, we can one day prevent monsters from being created in the first place.