Should executions be televised?

[Anti Federalist]

A question triggered by the comments on this blog posting.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2010/06/10/an-old-fashioned-execution.aspx?ref=rss

I'm in the NO camp, leaving aside the question should the state be executing anybody (no, the state should not be).

Boobus would love it, whoop and cheer and spill his beer more than likely.

[Vessol]

I'm against the government having the right to legally kill someone. No one is above the law.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm against the government having the right to legally kill someone. No one is above the law.

Poll is up.

Had to walk away for minute.

[Golding]

No and no for executions in general.

But really, there's plenty of violence on the news at is it without it being state-endorsed murder.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

No for executions, but if they happen at least don't conduct them in secrecy.

[MelissaWV]

Assuming there are executions (I'm with you on getting rid of them), it brings up a lot of questions. There's the obvious moral question, but morality isn't quite universal.

There are economic concerns. Television networks usually charge money to air something. Would they be REQUIRED to carry executions? Would this simply be a matter of a network deciding it wants to buy the rights to executions? Which way would the money go? If the networks are paid, then one has to assume it's the taxpayer paying. If the networks are forced, then we've run into another problem. If the networks are paying, then where does that money go? Does it go to the families? Does it offset the cost of the execution? If this last option is put into effect, won't the State be making money from killing people? Wouldn't it then be in their interest to tilt the scales of justice to get more death penalties, rather than life in prison for which the prisoner is unlikely to earn their keep?

There is the question of timing. Will you switch executions to evenings to avoid showing it at, say, 4pm when the kids get home from school? What about timezones? You'd end up doing executions in the late evening (east coast) but you'd have to tapdance around primetime.

There is the liability/exposure of it all. To show executions is also to show botched executions. This might backfire on the State. This is honestly the most likely reason you won't see executions televised, coupled with the humanization of many inmates. Most inmates blubber and pray and do rather human things when faced with the finality of their death.

There is the sensationalism of it, which goes several ways. The prisoners who aren't crying and begging for mommy can use it as one last way to taunt the victims' families forever, and to make statements to the country (and what's sure to be a large audience). This is a reward that someone who's done something bad enough to be killed for doesn't really deserve. The networks and the State would benefit greatly from putting people on death row, getting up to the execution, and then having some dramatic development. Think of Roman Emperors and how they behaved at the end of a gladiator battle. Thumbs up, or thumbs down? There would be some heartwarming last-minute calls pardoning prisoners. Staging such things is not beyond our Government.

[nateerb]

I voted Yes - do not support, only because this hideous State practice should be exposed to all including small children.

[0zzy]

I voted Yes - do not support, only because this hideous State practice should be exposed to all including small children.

Then they'll grow up to be Gurley Martin!

[Pauls' Revere]

legalize it pay per view and government can tax it...

Think of the revenue stream!

at least government will be MAKING money instead of stealing it.

[MelissaWV]

legalize it pay per view and government can tax it...

Think of the revenue stream!

at least government will be MAKING money instead of stealing it.

I find the idea of Government profiting from their own brutal crimes distasteful enough. The notion of them profiting from the disgusting crimes of others is even worse.

[Ninja Homer]

Yes to televised, no to supporting executions. My feeling is that if they were televised, then maybe more people would be against it. I also feel that the person(s) responsible for sentencing them to execution should be the one(s) that actually carry out the deed.

[nateerb]

Yes to televised, no to supporting executions. My feeling is that if they were televised, then maybe more people would be against it. I also feel that the person(s) responsible for sentencing them to execution should be the one(s) that actually carry out the deed.

^ This. The juries should be marched into the same room as the condemned, with "Love Connection" style control panels at their seats. Everyone must be made to push the button at the exact time to release the poison, if a juror does not push they should be jailed for contempt of court and the prisoners sentence commuted to life in prison.

You would never see another execution is this country ever again.

[Zippyjuan]

What is the intention of the executions? Is it to deter crime? There has not been any strong link between executing people and lowering crime rates. Is it to give the family of the victims a sense of justice or vindication? Many have said that witnessing the execution did not bring them any sense of relief from their pain- some said it did bring "closure" to them.

What would be the reason for airing the executions? Again as a deterant? Showing executions could have two effects. In the shorter term or if executions remain a fairly rare event, it could cause the public to become turned off on them and lead to a push to try to repeal the death penalty. Or if they are relatively frequent enough, people would become more desensitized to them and death which would eleminate the deterance factor almost completely.

My own opinion? I am against the death penalty.

[Natalie]

I voted for "Yes and I do not support executions." Anybody who's ever looked into the death penalty knows that it is extremely backwards and racist and costs way more than life incarceration does. Isn't "leading by example" a huge part of libertarianism? Why would we murder people who murder to show that murder is wrong? We don't rape rapists. Also, only a very small fraction of murderers actually get the death penalty. What makes these murders worse than other murders? I was sorta kidding when I voted to televise it :P

[TonySutton]

The STATE should never take a life.

[FreeTraveler]

Where's the "only of state functionaries" option? :D

[puppetmaster]

gov should not execute....period....if someone touches my family....i need easier access to them ;)

[Pauls' Revere]

I find the idea of Government profiting from their own brutal crimes distasteful enough. The notion of them profiting from the disgusting crimes of others is even worse.

Prisoners write books about thier crimes and make money.

[EvilEngineer]

I wish we would bring back blood games like gladiatorial combat for the condemned...

Honestly if I was condemned I'd rather going out fighting then on my back with a needle in my arm.

[Kludge]

^ This. The juries should be marched into the same room as the condemned, with "Love Connection" style control panels at their seats. Everyone must be made to push the button at the exact time to release the poison, if a juror does not push they should be jailed for contempt of court and the prisoners sentence commuted to life in prison.

You would never see another execution is this country ever again.

hoo-hooooooo! I like how you think!

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't have a problem with executions. I do have a problem with our current Judicial system.

First, lets fix our judicial system so that Jurors actually understand their duties, responsibilities, etc. Then, lets set some clear guidelines on punishment for those declared guilty.

What do you propose to do with a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc. Is locking them up forever practical? Perhaps giving the families of the victims the trigger for method of euthanasia rather than some state executioner.

[Southron]

I don't have a problem with executions. I do have a problem with our current Judicial system.

First, lets fix our judicial system so that Jurors actually understand their duties, responsibilities, etc. Then, lets set some clear guidelines on punishment for those declared guilty.

What do you propose to do with a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc. Is locking them up forever practical? Perhaps giving the families of the victims the trigger for method of euthanasia rather than some state executioner.

I'm curious as to the cost of imprisoning these people for life.

[MelissaWV]

Prisoners write books about thier crimes and make money.

The prisoners, in many states, are not the ones making money. And yes, it sickens me, too:


Although "Son of Sam" laws across the country are fairly similar, the wording of such laws varies from state to state. In most states, the victim must sue the offender in civil court and obtain a judgment for damages before being eligible to make a claim against the offender's profits. In others, claims are made through the established state victim compensation program. The laws generally apply to convicted offenders, including those who plead guilty, as well as those who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity. A few states include persons accused of a crime, provided there has been an indictment or some other preliminary determination that the defendant may have committed the crime.

Ordinarily, states require that the profits be paid to the state, and be held in escrow. Generally, the state agency that receives the funds then attempts to contact the offender's victims, either directly or by publishing notices regarding the availability of funds in local newspapers. Victims then have a limited number of years (usually three to five years) from the date the escrow account is established to file a civil suit against the offender. Any resulting judgment can be paid out of the escrow account.

Where no victims bring a civil suit, or when excess funds remain in the account, the law designates the disposition of the funds. Some states return the funds to the defendant. Others provide a list of payees and an order of priority of payment, including the payment of such things as victim restitution orders, court costs, defense attorney fees, costs of incarceration, and other expenses. Often any remaining funds are deposited into the state crime victims compensation fund.

This is all my fault anyhow for thinking about what the actual arrangement would be, rather than deciding I hate the State enough to wish things like this to be televised without regard for anyone involved. :p

[Wesker1982]

If a TV station wants to air it, let them. I am against all censorship. Whether or not its a good business move is obviously questionable. I do not support executions.

[Zippyjuan]

I'm curious as to the cost of imprisoning these people for life.

Most sources say it is significantly cheaper to give somebody a life sentence as compared to giving them a death sentence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

To execute or not: A question of cost?
States discover it's cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them


updated 1:35 a.m. PT, Sat., March. 7, 2009
After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long, twisted journeys to the nation's highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong:

Money.

Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.

So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.

"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.



More at the link.

[virgil47]

Most sources say it is significantly cheaper to give somebody a life sentence as compared to giving them a death sentence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/


More at the link.

Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say. Executions reduce the recidivism rates to zero. If the state isn't allowed to perform executions then the family of the injured (or killed party) should be allowed to perform them. To feed, house, educate and entertain those that have committed a capital crime should itself be a capital crime!

[Pauls' Revere]

Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say. Executions reduce the recidivism rates to zero. If the state isn't allowed to perform executions then the family of the injured (or killed party) should be allowed to perform them. To feed, house, educate and entertain those that have committed a capital crime should itself be a capital crime!

Bah...the cost arguement. I visited a historical town in California in the gold country and there was a courthouse there with jury box, bench etc... out back behind it on the courthouse grounds were the gallows. They hung 'em high noon same day, or next whichever came first. Thirteen steps and all. Seems pretty straight froward that if your found guilty then the rest is semantics.

But as a previous post said the judical system is horribly manipulated.

[Golding]

I wouldn't mind if the executions of Bush and Cheney were televised. :]

[virgil47]

I wouldn't mind if the executions of Bush and Cheney were televised. :]

I wouldn't mind seeing Clinton walk up those thirteen steps:)

[Anti Federalist]

Execution by firing squad in Utah bump.

[RyanRSheets]

I'm curious as to the cost of imprisoning these people for life.

Ideally, very little. It certainly should not cost $50,000 a year to hold a prisoner. It shouldn't cost $5,000. Teach the prisoner to produce something in order to recover some of the cost of their imprisonment and it will be even cheaper. I guarantee we could cut out a ton of expense in our prisons. I think most of the cost of executing someone comes from all the litigation, so it doesn't really matter much if we just switched back to rope or bullets, though I find it much more appropriate to carry out executions in a manner that highlights how barbaric they are.

That said, I would wager that an all-too-large portion of our prisoners today are prisoners because of our government, in one way or another. How many people are in for drug use? How many for tax evasion? How many for prostitution? How many would not be criminals had the government taught them to be criminals?

[Knightskye]

No and I don't.

Televising them seems like a 'Big Brother' thing to do, or having them in public.

[LibertyEagle]

No, they should not be televised unless it is of a government official charged and found guilty by a jury, of treason against the Constitution.

Note: And I do support executions.

[ClayTrainor]

If a TV station wants to air it, let them. I am against all censorship. Whether or not its a good business move is obviously questionable. I do not support executions.

This, minus the last part... I can't say that I really have a problem with executing Child rapists, serial killers, etc.

If the government is executing people, it should be public knowledge and restricted from censorship. We shouldn't want to censor ourselves from the truth, no matter how ugly or how much we disapprove.

[Anti Federalist]

No, they should not be televised unless it is of a government official charged and found guilty by a jury, of treason against the Constitution.

I might have to change my position if that was the case.

;)

[MelissaWV]

I understood the original question to be asking whether there should be an effort for these things to be televised.

While I voted "no" and "no," if the question were "should television stations be barred from televising executions?" I also would have answered "no."

[nobody's_hero]

Well, if television is the problem, you could just go see it live, like folks did a 120 years ago or so.

[Anti Federalist]

I understood the original question to be asking whether there should be an effort for these things to be televised.

While I voted "no" and "no," if the question were "should television stations be barred from televising executions?" I also would have answered "no."

Correct.

Should executions be televised, you tubed, broadcast by any means?

I'll leave live witnessing aside, because in many states that is already the case.