Everytime I think the death penalty should be abolished, I read about something like this, and remember that there are just some people in the world for whom death isn't enough of a punishment.

What a f*cked-up world. I honestly have never fully made up my mind on capitol punishment, aside from the belief that if we do implement it, it should be performed in as humane a manner as possible (lest we let our dark ages selves bubble to the surface and become the very things we claim to despise).

I take it this doesn't apply to mob dumping bodies out in Jersey?

What's the difference between life in Jersey and death?

PS: For the record, i don't like the idea of "punishment" as anything more than a means to deter crime. Punishment is a means and not an end, and I don't personally believe that "justice" is somehow satisfied by killing.

How is keeping an innocent in the NJ Prison system for life any morally superior than the death penalty? I, and I would guess many others, would choose to be excecuted, hands down, over spending my life in that situation.

To me it's a combination of deterrent as well as one's actions resulting in appropriate consequences (which is, I suppose, basically the same thing).

In general, punishment is not deterrence. It is instead a consequence. It's the basic, evolved understanding of the benefits of not stealing, killing, etc that drives good behavior, not the fear of being smacked. People are on the whole good to each other. Bad people are on the whole not as scared of the consequences, and insane people simply don't care about them. That's my atheistic belief.

I'm so torn on capital punishment. I'll be interested to see the trends in crime in NJ over the next few decades. Could be illustrative.

No. That's not the contention. There are two things under consideration.

If you are innocent, it's better NOT to be put to death, on the theory that you have hope of getting out.

If you are NOT innocent, it's harder for you to deal with life in prison than to be put to death, and of the two choices, life in prison is the worse punishment.

This doesn't mean that it's preferable for the person locked up. But it's certainly preferable for society.

I believe there are also some nice amenities, like free education among others.

How about a 5 star prison? Or maybe puppy therapy?

Well, I answered your question, but you've not answered it yourself. I was curious where you stand that you'd raise such a question. It did not seem to match with your usual moral stances.

I think perhaps there are many more policies than you realize. One article I read recently (or heard on the radio) described the situation of older inmates who were ineligible for training programs available to younger inmates (college age or a bit older) or who were within a year or so of release. A quick Google shows papers such as this one on the Washington State philosophy of education as a means to prevent recidivism, which is held to be very expensive.

Elsewhere, the paper explains why we'd want to educate prisoners:

So there are strong social reasons for creating education programs for prisoners. I understand the natural instinct is to criticize giving *anything* to criminals, but that's counter-productive. Many are literally misguided and can be turned around, or are mentally ill needing treatment, and teaching everything from life skills to auto repair can have large returns for society. It's not as if they are being given college educations, although I'm sure somewhere that program might exist. It's a sincere effort to better people who genuinely need it.

The one sure thing is that if we just relegate prisoners to only punishment, we'll convert a lot of them into career criminals. That's been known for decades, if not more. It's the balance that needs to be considered; the basic philosophy of teaching and helping them integrate back into society is proven to benefit all of us.

As you can see, many programs focus on high-school equivalency, but stop after a certain time or are limited to certain ages, as I noted.

Literacy and recidivism among prisoners in Oklahoma (the rate of recidivism drops with education).

The UK stopped the death penalty in 1965, so it's not something that's been seriously under debate here for a very long time, but it seems to me that it's one of those areas where you can't win. I find it difficult to come up with a really satisfying rational position on the subject. There is a moral component (what is the legal system for in a societal moral sense?) and a practical component (The effect of education on reoffending would be a good example here, or the "if we kill them, we're no better than they are" argument) You have to decide what prison and sentencing is really there for. Clearly punishment and deterrent form a major part, but I do firmly believe that rehabilitation should form some part of it. To answer Nomad's question, it is not fair that violent criminals should get education for free that is denied to law-abiding citizens due to cost, but this becomes a practical issue. The political cost/benefit works out that the cost of educating these guys is worth it because of the political cost of them doing crime. It doesn't work out for the poor, law-abiding citizens because the electorate doesn't really care about poor immigrants living in squalor or starving to death.

However, then you have the problem of to what extent you believe that someone that could, for example, rape and murder an eight-year-old, can ever really be rehabilitated. So what is the legal system's responsibility in the case of Jesse Timmendequas? Clearly to prevent him from doing it again. He did it whilst capital punishment was still in effect, so its deterrent effect didn't work in this case. I do feel strongly that any notion of "revenge" is a bad reason for capital punishment. I'm not immune to these feelings. When I read what Timmendequas did I want the scumbag struck from the face of the earth too, but I do reckon it's an unenlightened attitude.

Can I ask to what degree miscarriages of justice are reported by the US media? In the UK the media is very willing to hammer the police and legal system when someone is found guilty on what is later found to be dubious or fabricated circumstances, even though they've probably done something. Several IRA bombers have been set free due to them having been stitched up by the police, and they get the public sympathy, even though most of them really were in the IRA and have probably done something equivalent to whatever they were originally sent down for. Despite this, public opinion is on their side. I agree with this too, and I think that the police should be held to the highest standards, but I'd be interested to hear whether the same is true in the States, and whether this is another factor in US public opinion being generally pro-capital punishment.

It is interesting to me that, in general, the developed world does not use the death penalty. However there are such notable exceptions, specifically the US, Japan, and Singapore that it seems more of a tendency than a rule. I wonder to what degree the strength of the religious lobby in the US is keeping it around?

Because it's every bit as good an investment as educating non-prisoners. Perhaps better. That was the point. It's really easy to poke holes, but you've got a counter-argument now. Do you believe that educating prisoners is a cost-effective way of preventing harm to citizens upon release? If so, then your question becomes something like, are you more worried about criminal recidivism and the cost of harsher laws, or educational subsidies for regular citizens?

You've still not explained your thinking behind the other question I answered. I believe the assumption behind your question is immoral and I'm curious how you defend it.