Dunham forgot to mention that pre trial, at trial and within appeals, judges review all the mental issues of the defendant/convicted party and they will not be executed, unless confirmed that they meet the proper mental status.
That only kind of works since most criminals think they're not going to get caught (a good bet, as we see today where the vast majority of crimes are unsolved.) They took it a step further and deterred everyone, even royalty weren't immune.
Responsibility to the community permeated their entire culture, as you can see in the Incas' traditional greeting: "Ama Sua. Ama Lulla. Ama Quella" - "Don't steal, don't lie, don't be lazy". Routine drunkenness, spousal or child abuse, and begging were all capital crimes, even malicious gossip could be.
The problem with a culture where no one lies is that when they encounter Europeans they're utterly unprepared. The Inca were unable to believe that the Spanish barbarians would lie for any reason, or no reason at all, it was so foreign to their belief system that it took a generation for them to come to terms with it (and by that time 80-90% of their population was dead.)
That is not true. States in the US regularly execute people who have low intellectual ability and, although guilty of those crimes they were convicted for, obviously lack the ability to understand the consequences of actions they have done.
Firstly, they are more likely to provide confessions which are gold to prosecutors, Secondly, the burden of proving that they do have the disability falls on them. Bit of a problem if you have a severe intellectual disability, right?
In a perfect court system that is what would happen, but in Texas and (IIRC) Florida they're slightly less than perfect and have executed multiple people in the last few years with blatant mental issues. At least one of them was so incompetent that he probably was not even able to understand the charges against him much less provide assistance to his defense.
That's because after that point they stopped examining the records of the executed for guilt/innocence. At least 180 probably-innocent people have been executed since 1973, including one convicted exclusively on the testimony of a prison informer who later confessed to lying about it. Even though he would have been declared innocent on a retrial since he's dead he's still considered guilty.
To err is human, to err in a death penalty case is inerrantly final. Life w/out parole is final enough punishment for this mortal. It's also reversible, in the event that the guilty party turns out to be not guilty. The state should not be in the fatal vengeance business, IMO.
The same argument was made in Ancient China, by the school known as the Legalists: If all crimes were punished with utmost severity, there would be no crime.
Unlike the inca, we have very good and plentiful sources for the history of Ancient China. The policy was a disaster and led directly to the fall of the dynasty that instituted it. In particular, it sparked the rebellion that overthrew the dynasty, because when a lowly magistrate found he would not be able to bring in a group of conscripts on time -- a capital offense, of course -- he concluded that he might as well die for something with a bit more of a future, and started a rebellion. That man became the Emperor of the next dynasty.
Single-source history told by outsiders is worthless. You'd be laughed out of the room at any academic meeting, not for your conclusions but for your credulity.
Really? You seem to be getting very excited by the prospect of executions. For my money, you'd pee yourself if you ever had to carry one out.
I'm Canadian. We abolished the death penalty a generation ago. The police organizations predicted an orgy of murder if we did. They were lying -- deliberately lying, it turned out later, using statistics that were incomplete. Their predictions failed to come true. What makes you think that Americans are the only people in the world so wicked that the death penalty would be effective?
A humane way of executing someone would be to put a shotgun to the back of their head and pull the trigger. But that makes it altogether too clear to everyone what is happening.
Dunham forgot to mention that pre trial, at trial and within appeals, judges review all the mental issues of the defendant/convicted party and they will not be executed, unless confirmed that they meet the proper mental status.
Dunham is, well, aware.
That only kind of works since most criminals think they're not going to get caught (a good bet, as we see today where the vast majority of crimes are unsolved.) They took it a step further and deterred everyone, even royalty weren't immune.
Responsibility to the community permeated their entire culture, as you can see in the Incas' traditional greeting: "Ama Sua. Ama Lulla. Ama Quella" - "Don't steal, don't lie, don't be lazy". Routine drunkenness, spousal or child abuse, and begging were all capital crimes, even malicious gossip could be.
The problem with a culture where no one lies is that when they encounter Europeans they're utterly unprepared. The Inca were unable to believe that the Spanish barbarians would lie for any reason, or no reason at all, it was so foreign to their belief system that it took a generation for them to come to terms with it (and by that time 80-90% of their population was dead.)
One innocent person executed is too many.
That is not true. States in the US regularly execute people who have low intellectual ability and, although guilty of those crimes they were convicted for, obviously lack the ability to understand the consequences of actions they have done.
Firstly, they are more likely to provide confessions which are gold to prosecutors, Secondly, the burden of proving that they do have the disability falls on them. Bit of a problem if you have a severe intellectual disability, right?
In a perfect court system that is what would happen, but in Texas and (IIRC) Florida they're slightly less than perfect and have executed multiple people in the last few years with blatant mental issues. At least one of them was so incompetent that he probably was not even able to understand the charges against him much less provide assistance to his defense.
Shrub and his band of war criminals, who got away with crimes that the Nuremberg Commission executed people for.
What? There is only 2 weeks of the year left. Are you planning some sort of super-murder spree for Christmas?
Virginia abolished the death penalty this year. They haven't executed anyone for a long time. Do you even know when that took place?
That's because after that point they stopped examining the records of the executed for guilt/innocence. At least 180 probably-innocent people have been executed since 1973, including one convicted exclusively on the testimony of a prison informer who later confessed to lying about it. Even though he would have been declared innocent on a retrial since he's dead he's still considered guilty.
To err is human, to err in a death penalty case is inerrantly final. Life w/out parole is final enough punishment for this mortal. It's also reversible, in the event that the guilty party turns out to be not guilty. The state should not be in the fatal vengeance business, IMO.
This is the thing, the only thing. Life w/out possibility of parole is enough for me.
The same argument was made in Ancient China, by the school known as the Legalists: If all crimes were punished with utmost severity, there would be no crime.
Unlike the inca, we have very good and plentiful sources for the history of Ancient China. The policy was a disaster and led directly to the fall of the dynasty that instituted it. In particular, it sparked the rebellion that overthrew the dynasty, because when a lowly magistrate found he would not be able to bring in a group of conscripts on time -- a capital offense, of course -- he concluded that he might as well die for something with a bit more of a future, and started a rebellion. That man became the Emperor of the next dynasty.
Single-source history told by outsiders is worthless. You'd be laughed out of the room at any academic meeting, not for your conclusions but for your credulity.
Really? You seem to be getting very excited by the prospect of executions. For my money, you'd pee yourself if you ever had to carry one out.
I'm Canadian. We abolished the death penalty a generation ago. The police organizations predicted an orgy of murder if we did. They were lying -- deliberately lying, it turned out later, using statistics that were incomplete. Their predictions failed to come true. What makes you think that Americans are the only people in the world so wicked that the death penalty would be effective?
A humane way of executing someone would be to put a shotgun to the back of their head and pull the trigger. But that makes it altogether too clear to everyone what is happening.
Ok, I guess it's not the craziest solution I've ever heard (for anything!) but damn it's close.