Is it more humane to execute someone or sentence them to a life in prison?

[Null]

In response to this thread:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/11-year-old-kid-shoots-8-year-old-neighbour.13147/

I've always held that, especially in American institutions, I'd rather die than go to prison for any length of time. Maybe it's just because I'm an ADD mind and can't handle boredom at all, but that's how I feel. I'd rather a cop shoot me than try to put me in handcuffs.

But, I recognize most people don't feel this way and (for whatever reason) they'd rather just go to prison forever than die. What happens in the case of the above is probably a life sentence, trial as adult. There was a similar trial (that I can't find) where a boy murdered another boy by bashing his head in with a rock. He was found out because he had eaten everything from the dead kid's lunch box, except a banana. The parents did a test and invited all the kids to a party and the only kid who didn't eat bananas ended up confessing to killing the other boy.

They sentenced him to life in jail, and he was 20-something when I saw the documentary, but had been denied parole or release. So he'll basically spend 70 years in prison and never see the outside as an adult.

I'm curious if you think it'd be more humane to just kill him.

 

[KatsuKitty]

I believe a state has no right to impose a legally irreversible sentence on someone. This includes formally being put to death or being exposed to so much danger while incarcerated that the person is killed or severely disabled by others.

Such a right protects the rights of the wrongfully accused. If a sentence cannot be reversed in light of any evidence the person was innocent, it is not a fair sentence. There is a shocking number of death row vindications from DNA evidence.

 

[Vitriol]

Really interesting question, i'm sure i wrote a paper on this while at uni, can't remember if it was ever published but will have a look when i get home see if i can find a copy.

Iirc the gist of my finding was that while excecution may in some circumstances be kinder or more merciful than an actual life imprisonment the practical reality is that the lack of possible appeal makes it less useful as it completely fails to protect the falsely accused.

Where it gets more complicated is in cases where the defender is guilty to a standard of absolute proof (beyond even the normal standard) the lee rigby case is a good example. In such cases where the chances of error are nonexistent and the defender is wholly unrepentant it is very hard to argue that there is a meaningful difference between a true life sentence and a death sentence at which point the economic arguement is for the rope.

Its a complex problem and i've never been 100% happy with any answer i've come across including the one i have given above.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

Depends on the quality of the prisons really but generally I'd say prisons are more humane.

Both seem quite archaic and cruel though but there really isn't any kinder alternative to life term jail sentences for serious violent crimes that I can think of which would both appease victims and work as a deterrent.

 

[MasterDisaster]

To be fair if the person openly admits to murdering people and utterly shows no remorse for it I think they should be executed as soon as possible rather than spend any amount of time in prison/Death Row. Why waste taxpayers dollars to keep a sick fucker is solitary confinement for 5/10 years just so you can stick a needle in his arm? I have to agree with @KatsuKitty , however, that with DNA evidence a lot of people wrongfully charged with a crime have been found innocent later but my angle tends to be more for the unhinged psychos out there.
So the kid blasted another kid with a shotgun; that means he'll probably end up in juvie until he's eighteen and then be sent to an actual prison. It's going to be a circus, naturally, of people arguing about mental conditions, the fact that he's so young with hundreds of thousands of dollars being wasted processing this trial. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they tried to drag this out for seven years just so they could try him at eighteen.

 

[DoshesToDoshes]

To me, the question isn't whether it's humane, but moreso that them living is less of a problem. If they're undeniably the person who murdered in cold blood and would get a life sentence anyway, kill them, it's cheaper than feeding them for 60 or so years.

If they say they're innocent, and the evidence doesn't answer all the questions, life them.

On the actual question, it's more humane to let them live if they're not inhumane themselves. Do evil unto evil and kill the monsters.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

This seems like something which should be considered on a very case by case basis. Often though I'm not particularly interested in the humanity of the guilty. Like take Ian Huntly who killed those two girls in Manchester and was caugh red handed and confessed, spending the rest of his life in solitary because the other criminals keep trying to kill him. What kind of a life is that even if he wasn't a monster? What's the point? Because we're too "civilised" to practice the death penalty he just stays in prison forever.

 

[Andy27]

It's more humane to execute people so sentence them to a life in prison.

But yeah I think it depends on the individual. I'm personally against death sentences by the state as a matter of principle (only exception: betrayal during war time).

 

[BuckMatic]

It's more humane to kill him if you lock him up with nothing to eat but bananas. I've seen too many cases where people on death row keep appealing for decades to think most would rather die. He can off himself if he wants. Has anyone ever requested the death sentence over life in prison?

 

[chimpburgers]

I'd look at it on a case by case basis, though I've started become much more critical of the state trying to put people to death and there being a possibility that they fucked up somehow after the fact. That would be really inhumane if that ended up being the scenario, but I do recognize that there could be at least a few cases where a death sentence might be the most appropriate depending on the context.

 

[HeirenPlaya]

In my sick and twisted mind, it would be much better to keep prisoners that have without a shadow of a doubt committed crimes on the order of murder or rape to a lifetime of intense brutality, perhaps inflicted upon them by the victims or the victim's loved ones. This would likely cause the UN to get involved, or cost us in taxes, so I believe in using a firing squad, perhaps made up of the victims or their loved ones, or made up of armed citizens chosen as they would juries for jury duty. That would be one slip in the mail I would be happy to find!

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Gotta agree with @KatsuKitty that an irreversible sentence should never be handed down because convictions can be overturned years after the execution has taken place.

 

[Some JERK]

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the California prison system was violating its inmates 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The state actually conceded this point. From what I understand virtually all of the issues were rooted in severe overcrowding as a result of lengthy mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses like drugs.

When someone is given a life sentence it's basically a given that you're sentencing them to decades in a dangerous environment, but that's supposed to be because you're locking them up in the same building as the worst society has to offer, and that no institution can completely control the actions of its inmates without violating their civil rights. Once it gets to the point where the institution itself is the threat, then you've got a situation where it would probably be more humane to just start executing people instead. (As shitty as that is.)

EDIT: Apparently the California DOJ has since reduced prison population to 135% capacity, which is lower than the court mandated reduction to 137%, (they were at nearly 200% at the time of the ruling) so that's a step in the right direction, but it's still a shit-show.

 

[Strelok]

I do not beleive we should give the death sentance almost entirely based on two factors. One, it's so fucking expensive it's a waste of resources, and two, the staggering number of times we've executed someone only to find out "Oops, wasn't him! Oh well, pay the survivors a stipend or something, but we still gotta be hard on crime." I'm not really concerned with what happens to those who actually did it, especially considering the sorts of crimes one needs to commit to even qualify for such a sentance, but both the financial cost and times it's been an innocent person make it a problem in my eyes.

However, I also believe that those who wish to end their own lives, and aren't doing so as the result of mental sickness or delusion, should be granted that mercy, both in and out of prison, (especially the terminally ill who are told to sit in a hospital bed slowly withering away in intense pain for months becuase letting them die is "immoral".) but that's a discussion for another time.

 

[Pope Gregory IX]

Depends on whether the purpose of the prison system is rehabilitation or retribution.

EDIT: Having said that, if the comparison is 'execution' vs. 'life with no possibility of parole', and by 'humane' we're talking specifically about what is kinder to the prisoner, then Im with @Enclave Supremacy - it has to be a case-by-case basis. I imagine the will to live, no matter the circumstance, is very strong in some people. Ask Victor Frankl.

 

[AnOminous]

So the kid blasted another kid with a shotgun; that means he'll probably end up in juvie until he's eighteen and then be sent to an actual prison.

They're talking about trying him as an adult.

 

[Ravenor]

I believe a state has no right to impose a legally irreversible sentence on someone. This includes formally being put to death or being exposed to so much danger while incarcerated that the person is killed or severely disabled by others.

Such a right protects the rights of the wrongfully accused. If a sentence cannot be reversed in light of any evidence the person was innocent, it is not a fair sentence. There is a shocking number of death row vindications from DNA evidence.

Gotta agree with @KatsuKitty that an irreversible sentence should never be handed down because convictions can be overturned years after the execution has taken place.

This, you should not pass down some sentence that can't be reversed because guess what false confessions happen, coerced confessions happen and mistakes happen.

I also think the current prison system is a nightmare and it needs drastic reform (it also needs to be said private business should not be involved running a prison), as does the modern judicial system as some things that are treated as crimes are vastly over charged and over punished it's a system in trouble but it's the best system we have out of the ones available.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I would say that humaneness is irrelevant but rather efficiency of the justice system should be the goal. With that in mind death acts as a greater deterrent due to lack of possibility to escape and if the system were more quick to execute then it would also save money

 

[Ravenor]

I would say that humaneness is irrelevant but rather efficiency of the justice system should be the goal. With that in mind death acts as a greater deterrent due to lack of possibility to escape and if the system were more quick to execute then it would also save money

The thing is it's not, very few murdurs are premeditated a lot of them are heat of the moment. I.e. idiotic drunken brawls that get out of hand, walking in on your other half having sex with some one etc.

While I am not supportive of the death penalty at all, if it has to be performed at all it's done in such a way that people can benefit from the deceased's organs. So that maybe some good can come of the situation, although as China an NK prove a black market develops for such things and it would have to be HEAVILY regulated.
Before anyone ask's yes I am a donar.

 

[Strelok]

I would say that humaneness is irrelevant but rather efficiency of the justice system should be the goal. With that in mind death acts as a greater deterrent due to lack of possibility to escape and if the system were more quick to execute then it would also save money

But it's been proven time and time again it doesn't act as a detterant, and that infact the judicial system as a deterrent in the first place is a system that has utterly failed us. Prison doesn't teach people not to be criminals, it teaches them to be better at being criminals.