Death Penalty

[Jonathan Buhacoff]

Proposal:

Allow the death penalty for people convicted of treason, insurrection, or terrorism.

Allow the death penalty for people convicted of murder, violent robbery, violent sexual assault, or violent abduction.

Allow the death penalty for people convicted of conspiring to wrongfully convict an innocent person.

When sentenced, the death penalty must be swift after a regular postponement of the death penalty to allow the defendant time to appeal. The court must expedite the scheduling of appeals procedures for death penalty cases.

When executed, the death penalty must be either painless or instant.

Intent:

This does not require a judge to order the death penalty, but allows it so that judges can use it in the most severe cases and for it to serve as a deterrent to people considering committing such intentional crimes against the country and against other people.

This proposal does not apply to accidental death, negligence, or self-defense.

The death penalty for people who conspire to wrongfully convict others is also not required but allows a judge to use it, and it applies to both citizens and law enforcement and government officials. This is intended to be a deterrent against any person, whether employed by government or not, who might attempt to frame another person for a violent crime that resulted in a death sentence. The justice system must protect itself against abuse and this is a protection against one of the worst kinds of abuses of power.

The judge would not direct a specific method to be used for carrying out the death penalty — law enforcement will choose the method based on available personnel, equipment, and materials.

Discussion:

This proposal is for the most violent crimes where the criminal has opted to hurt someone else intentionally or created a situation that would cause that. Murder is always violent. The violent robbery, sexual assault, or abduction mentioned in this proposal is one where the criminal, in addition to threatening violence, did intentionally and violently harm the victim in the course of the robbery, sexual assault, or abduction. This could include but is not limited to shooting, stabbing, or beating.

The proposal for allowing the death penalty for people who conspire to “frame” an innocent person who then receives the death sentence for a crime they did not commit is because it is a horrific crime to manipulate the government to murder someone on their behalf and they had to go out of their way to make that happen — such conspiracies do not happen by accident. A person falsely accusing another has to know it’s false because they either have the evidence or they don’t, they either saw it happen or they didn’t. A person providing fabricated evidence has to know it’s false because they have to make an effort to produce it rather than collecting and preparing real evidence.

Here are some ways a person could be killed either painlessly or instantly. There may be other ways so this list is not exhaustive:

* Lack of oxygen (hypoxia) via carbon monoxide poisoning (painless)
* Lack of blood (anemia) via phlebotomy with anesthesia (painless)
* Poisoning via lethal injection (painless)
* Shooting via firing squad (instant)

Lethal injection is typically using sodium thiopental as anesthetic, pancuronium bromide to paralyze the person being injected, and potassium chloride to stop the heart.

Arguments in favor of this proposal:

Argument: Without the death penalty, the maximum sentence a judge could order is life in prison. For the violent crimes included in this proposal, life in prison doesn’t feel like justice to the survivors or to families of deceased victims. The punishment should be appropriate to the crime and the death penalty is justice for the worst crimes.

Argument: The death penalty is an effective deterrent for some people who would commit violent treason, insurrection, terrorism, murder, robbery, sexual assault, and abduction. It may not deter everyone but even if it deters one person from committing a violent crime, then its mere existence has saved a life.

Argument: The death penalty prevents people who committed the worst violent crimes from being released back into society where they will again commit violent crimes. Even if the government intends to keep someone in prison for life, there is a chance of escape and during that escape the criminal may harm the guards.

Argument: Prisons have a limited capacity and if they are overcrowded a future government may choose to release some prisoners instead of building more prisons. For people who have a chance at redemption, an early release may be acceptable, but for people who committed the worst crimes and received a prison of life in prison an early release is never acceptable. The death penalty ensures it doesn’t happen.

Argument: Life in prison is like a vacation for enemies of the country. If they ever do become free, they’ll just continue acting against the people and the government. The government should not pay for sheltering, clothing, feeding, and medical care for a person who acted to violently overthrow it or to terrorize others. The death penalty is a deterrent against treason and terrorism, whereas life in prison is a reward for getting caught.

Argument: Maintaining a secure prison with habitable conditions is expensive. The government should only pay for someone to be imprisoned for whom there is a chance of redemption. A sentence of life in prison is a waste of all those resources. The government should pay for sheltering, clothing, feeding, and medical care for a person who will never be free again.

Arguments in opposition to this proposal:

Argument: There is always a risk of wrongful conviction. For the death penalty, the consequences of a wrongful conviction and execution are irreversible whereas with a life sentence a wrongfully convicted person can be freed. Counter-argument: This is a legitimate concern and this proposal includes mitigation for this possibility. First, there must be a regular postponement of a death sentence to allow time for appeal. Second, conspiring to wrongfully convict someone is itself a crime punishable by death in this proposal, and this is intended to be a deterrent against intentional wrongful convictions.

Argument: Where the death penalty is allowed, it is applied with bias against some groups, which itself is unjust. Counter-argument: The right to a fair trial can be used in appeal if the jury who convicted the defendant was biased. The problem of racism and unfair bias in society needs to be addressed but it should not be used to remove one of the government’s most effective deterrent against the worst crimes.

Argument: There are better alternatives to the death penalty, such as life in prison without parole. Counter-argument: For the worst crimes, life in prison is an expensive sentence which does not deliver justice to the survivors or the families of deceased victims and which does not provide an effective deterrent.

Argument: The death penalty is expensive. Counter-argument: If a proposed execution method is expensive, or if an execution method used in the past is expensive, it is a legitimate argument against the use of that specific execution method, but not a legitimate argument against the use of the death penalty in general. There are many ways to kill a person, and some of those ways can be painless or instant while still being inexpensive. If a person is sentenced to death and there are no painless or instant methods available to the government, or if the painless or instant methods are unreasonably expensive, the government should carry out its duty with inferior methods in the present and continue working on improving the situation for the future.

Argument: The death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Counter-argument: The use of deterrents is a well-established and effective practice in many areas of life including parenting, workplace policies, contracts, civil and criminal law, and diplomacy. Furthermore, it is already well-known that the use of the word “effective” in relation to deterrents or any other security measure means “prevents some occurrences for a reasonable cost” and does not mean “prevents 100% of occurrences” so evidence that points to a small number or percentage of cases in which crimes were committed anyway is not persuasive. The cost of making the death penalty a sentencing option is very low. When an effective method is chosen for carrying out the death penalty, the cost of doing it is low. Therefore, the death penalty need only be effective in deterring a few occurrences for the cost to be reasonable. A persuasive argument against the death penalty as an effective deterrent must show that the death penalty is completely ineffective, because anything less than that is somewhat effective and it’s worth the cost.

[Author]

Posts