Triggering: Death Penatly- WITH A TWIST

[TigerTank77]

So, I'm sitting in the drive through for Taco Bell, listening to a talk show rant about the Troy Davis case and the death penalty in general.

I remembered a while back about a guy in Utah choosing his method of execution, when I suddenly got an idea.

What if, we made the death penalty voluntary?

What I mean by this is, lets say for example someone commits a crime, and is found guilty, and is sentenced to life in prison. What if then, in exchange for waving their right to appeal, they could be given the option of the death penalty? So that it would HAVE to be a choice, you could not be sentenced to death.

So that way, if they know they did it, and there's absolutely nothing that could prove them innocent, they could just opt to be put down. No long ass legal battles and appeals burning through tax money, just a quick and painless death. (Not everyone would chose it, but I'd honestly rather die on my own terms than spend the rest of my life in prison.)

That way, if someone is innocent, they wont be facing death, they'll just have to sit in prison until they can prove themselves innocent, or they get paroled.

Thoughts?

[Snufkin]

What came to my mind immediately was the same argument against euthanasia - that people would feel pressured into doing it, for whatever reasons (probably financial when it comes to jail time).

I don't like the idea, since it is basically euthanasia in captivity, but as stated in the Davis thread I'm against the death penalty at all costs.

[TheNumber42]

I personally think that's a brilliant idea. It really would be cheaper if they weren't allowed to appeal or anything and didn't have to be kept in prison for very long. It would be more humane because they wanted it. Seems like an all around win to me.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

What you said...

In theory it could sound good, but legally, voluntary or not, the courts have no authority to punish someone beyond the scope and seriousness of the crime committed, as that would be considered cruel and unusaul punishment.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by -A-

In theory it could sound good, but legally, voluntary or not, the courts have no authority to punish someone beyond the scope and seriousness of the crime committed, as that would be considered cruel and unusaul punishment.

How is it cruel and unusual if they want it?

[-A-]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

How is it cruel and unusual if they want it?

It goes beyond the courts scope of power. The punishment ordered by the court can not exceed that of the debt caused by the crime.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Although one flaw has been mentioned by Austin, another flaw is what if the person acknowledged they killed whomever but felt the death was necessary, such as following God's commands, "revenge justice", etc...? Legally they're guilty but the person may reason morally they were innocent or should get a lesser sentence.

Also, would the voluntary death penalty apply to all types of murder or just particular ones. That is, would, say, infanticide or manslaughter crimes (both of which are types of murders) fall under this voluntary death penalty umbrella? If it applies to only certain types or degrees of murder, can you explain why?

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by -A-

It goes beyond the courts scope of power. The punishment ordered by the court can not exceed that of the debt caused by the crime.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Also, would the voluntary death penalty apply to all types of murder or just particular ones. That is, would, say, infanticide or manslaughter crimes (both of which are types of murders) fall under this voluntary death penalty umbrella? If it applies to only certain types or degrees of murder, can you explain why?

I would say that any crimes that currently qualify for capital punishment would apply, or sentences where one could receive life in prison as the minimum.

Also, I don't understand how sentencing someone to death is fine, but giving them the choice between life in prison and death is "cruel and unusual."

[Xujhan]

I don't feel I should comment until a point has been clarified: if they opt not to be executed, is the death penalty then off the table? In other words, would the death penalty ever be given to anyone who did not choose it?

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I don't feel I should comment until a point has been clarified: if they opt not to be executed, is the death penalty then off the table? In other words, would the death penalty ever be given to anyone who did not choose it?

No. At that point they would serve their original sentence.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I would say that any crimes that currently qualify for capital punishment would apply, or sentences where one could receive life in prison as the minimum.

Also, I don't understand how sentencing someone to death is fine, but giving them the choice between life in prison and death is "cruel and unusual."

Its late, so hopefully this will make sense.

If say someone was given a life sentence for some type of grand robbery or whatever you may chose. Lets also say that the crime they committed did not end in ones life in an early death. As such, the debt the accused could face would be up to, and not more then that for which they have committed. It's like saying you stole $1,000. The max the court could order you to pay back would be $1,000, simply on just that charge. If they required you to pay $2,000 back, that would be cruel and unsusual punishment. Get it now?

As far as the accused selecting the death penalty if the crime they committed, charged and found guilty was that of homicide/murder/etc.. I believe many, if not most states have how the death penalty is selected is written into their constitution. So there for it would require a 2/3 majority vote by both cambers of their state congress. The chances of that happening would be slim to none.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by -A-

As far as the accused selecting the death penalty if the crime they committed, charged and found guilty was that of homicide/murder/etc.. I believe many, if not most states have how the death penalty is selected is written into their constitution. So there for it would require a 2/3 majority vote by both cambers of their state congress. The chances of that happening would be slim to none.

I'm not saying w re-write the system, I'm saying that crimes that already carry the option of capital punishment would have the option of well, having the option.

I'm not saying someone sent to prison for life for robbery should have that option.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'm not saying w re-write the system, I'm saying that crimes that already carry the option of capital punishment would have the option of well, having the option.

I'm not saying someone sent to prison for life for robbery should have that option.

To the last sentence: ah okkk. The op makes much more sense now.

To the first sentence: It would have to be rewritten. For the court to order someone to death, they have to fallow how the law states it must and as I said previously, many of the death penalty laws are written in the individual State constitution.

[david2357]

the purpose of the death penalty is justice. having it voluntary would make it a non-option for those who DONT want to die. which would defeat the purpose of it being a penalty.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by david2357

the purpose of the death penalty is justice. having it voluntary would make it a non-option for those who DONT want to die. which would defeat the purpose of it being a penalty.

Yes, but it would eliminate the risk of putting and innocent man to death, which is no justice at all.

[dr2005]

Interesting idea; however, it's one I can see being well and truly open to exploitation and it also smacks somewhat of arbitrary justice. Some, rightly or wrongly, may view being able to curtail the sentence in favour of a preferred execution as negating the effect of the life sentence in the first place. I'd also be concerned on mental health grounds as by and large people don't volunteer themselves for execution, and having proper checks for that would probably hinder the process anyway.

Like Scott, I am intrinsically opposed to the death penalty but viewing the idea objectively I'm not convinced it's a plausible response to the problem. Ultimately, the only surefire way of not executing innocent people is quite simple - don't execute people. That's what Europe decided to do a few decades ago when faced with the same problem.

[Magic.]

I don't believe in there being any kind of death penalty. An eye for an eye is not how justice should work. I believe if someone is guilty they should be made to live with their guilt.
I do agree with your logic though if there must be a death penalty.