FWIW, conversations about assassinating terrorist leaders often include struggles predicting blowback and issues discerning whether tensions between terrorist groups and the States would worsen as a result. I think your assumption that assassinating Osama and/or targeted drone killings of other terrorists unequivocally decreases terrorist activity is a bit of a jump.

Perhaps more directly related to our topic, I wonder how negative unintended consequences of assassinations might decrease if these individuals were (hypothetically) apprehended, tried, convicted, and put in prison for life and NOT executed. I know the reasons why apprehension isn't usually opted for, but I'm just putting it out there to think about and to keep us on topic.

I accept the limitations of our relatively small sample here in the States, but many interested specialists would disagree that the sample is insufficient. Moreover, a healthy portion of studies showing a deterrent effect don't control for the deterrence of life sentences, which really decreases the credibility of pro-deterrence studies and lop-sides the pro/con data debate. We've got data showing that murder rates in States with the death penalty consistently being higher than States without it, year after year, for decades. Criminologists overwhelmingly agree (like 9 out of 10) that the death penalty doesn't deter murder. These are impressions formulated from social scientific study and reviews of empirical data. I'm not convinced that the phenomenon can't be sufficiently analyzed through use of data and, therefore, we gotta turn to theory alone.

Any thoughts on what kind of sample you would need to respect research findings, or what controls you would need to see that aren't being covered currently by social researchers? Like, what would it take for you to recognize results which can't disprove the null (if I said that right...)?

A better description of my con position is that empirical data and the majority opinion of relevant specialists sway me to believe a deterrence effect isn't present above and beyond that of life imprisonment.

I find it troubling that you can't even admit that a significant number of innocent people HAVE SURELY been executed.

So a higher higher burden of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt?" Wouldn't a higher burden be "beyond unreasonable doubt?" I don't even know what that means. I guess I need to know more about what exactly you're getting at.

Immoral, terrible cost benefit ratio, administered with great prejudice

But I do love me some revenge... USA #1

I take it you never saw Half Baked or Office Space? Need me to PM you the link the next time someone makes a "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison" joke? Or the next time somebody expresses hope that someone like Jerry Sandusky gets raped in prison?

You're just making stuff up. C'mon.

Chapelle's (and other comedians') use of irreverent humor is well known. Topics targeted by comedians aren't by any means reflective of what the general population jokes about in day-to-day IRL scenarios. At least that's my take on it. And no, nobody ever approaches me to have a laugh about pedophiles getting raped, but I admit my experience might not be typical of others'.

Also, FWIW, I think perpetuating "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison" jokes is morally equivalent to making light of like the Rhianna/Chris Brown situation, or R. Kelly, or generic wife beater jokes. I think it can be understod as a product of contemporary American 'rape culture,' which surely will draw ire from some here.

DIB, the culture of revenge is so perverse in the United States that 60% of the population favors the death penalty. Do you really think that in that there isn't a significant portion of the population that thinks prison rape is a fine form of revenge?

Fair point.

Nobody should kill somebody else. There are very few mainly self defense edge cases where we forgive it. "This dude rotting in a cage must be dragged out of his cage and murdered by the state because we don't like him" is not one of them.

Assertions itt

Id be against it. It serves no purpose other than revenge and revenge as a part of the justice system is inherently immoral.

I'm not even happy with life sentences. Give me 21 max and forvaring any day.

lol no pretty sure I want sociopathic serial killers and sadistic serial rapers locked up forever.

Check out the likes of Bundy and, say, David Parker Ray, then tell me you want these sickos moving in next door. I would accept nothing less than 100% certainty that these guys would not re-offend given their nature, and 100% certainty isn't ever gonna happen.

Lock them up forever. I'd favor execution way ahead of release if those were my only two options for men like them.

You dont understand what forvaring means, its a reference to the Norway system. If they are a danger they will never be released.

Ha, thought it was a 'forgiving' typo or something. Will look into it.

I would, but not a lot. I'd much rather see some sort of exile/prison island thing set up for people who are unfixable threats to society. Then you have a sweet science experiment.

You say this on a site where "try hitting her" used to be a meme?

Fun fact: this is what Columbia does.

Fun fact: Columbia has the top three serial killers of all time by number of victims.

Fun fact: One of them raped at least 300+ young girls, but was released in 1998. His current whereabouts are unknown.

Was this meant to be in reference to the forvaring guy's post? Seems like it may have been. So long as the sickest criminals are imprisoned forever I don't much care how the sentencing is packaged or framed; forvaring, life in prison without parole, whatever.

Regardless, my wife is Colombian and I happen to be familiar with the "Monster of the Andes" and other serial child rapists / murderers. I have to say, I'd be worried that utilizing the Norweigen system in the States would have similar shortcomings as we've seen in Colombia where, too, violent crime has been more of a cultural concern than in Norway; that exceedingly dangerous men would be freed due to oversight or negligence. In this way I prefer the "throw away the key" sentence where there is no ambiguity IRT what's to happen with these people.

The big thing with the Norwegian system is you will shift to an entirely rehabilitation (probably wrong word, its late here) system designed to integrate prisoners into society.

Basically its a trade off no longer punishing prisoners but gaining the lowest recidivism rates on the planet.

This is why 21+ as a max sentence works. By the time they have done that 21 years they should be no more harmful as any other random never convicted. They are helped in any way required to find work after prison, settle into their new life and leave prison and their old life behind.

Think about it, for every Hannibal Lecter who could trick the psychologists and are not rehabilitated by the system there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other prisoners who arent stuck cycling back around the system harming and sometimes killing people in the process for a net benefit.

The system directly addresses "violent crime as a cultural concern". America on the other hand releases tonnes of dangerous men by design because it takes little to no effort to reintegrate those prisoners back into society, fingers crossed that drug user turned armed robber turned murderer doesnt cross paths with you during his cycle in and out of prison, but when he finally does murder someone, bonus, he gets to be warehoused for the rest of his life to stop him murdering more people.

Pearl clutching to "thou shalt not kill" itt

Are you claiming that if the US adopted the Norwegian system it too would have a super low recidivism rate?

We already have a system that helps ex-cons find work after prison, settle into their new life, have drug treatment set up for them, etc etc etc. I'm sure there are differences in approach IRT how these services are delivered but generally they're the same.

The difference is repeat offenders and/or those who have offended in particularly heinous ways aren't given another chance at freedom. There are well documented cultural differences about the States which make statements like "...they should be no more harmful than any other rando" not possible.

Yeah but we don't want any Hannibals ever tricking psychologists. Ever. And Jesus, we've probably had more serial killings last year than in Norway's entire history (speculation and dramatic, but you get the point). They need to be locked up forever and without exception.
American system has some very apparent flaws, I'm not going to contest that because it's a fact. That said, I'm gonna need to see more compelling arguments than (no offense), "This system works in peaceful/removed Norwegian culture so it will work in the US too!" It's just way too big a jump. Moreover, even if it were true, given the extremely high relative rate of violent crime and/or serial murder, I'd want to reserve the right to lock up forever those fitting this description.

Norway does have the right to lock up those kinds of criminals forever.

Yeah, this (which I am sure I covered). Dangerous people will have to trick a team of experts who spend lots of time working with them to "cheat the system" and get free - the odds are low that even non-zero it's worth the risk. Especially dangerous high profile killers have a bar set so high it's practically impossible for them to prove they are safe.

Eventually America's recidivism rate could be lowered dramatically, maybe not to Norway's levels, but still definitely lower. It would be a sign a lot of positive changes had happened in America in general too.

America's programs to stop recidivism are ****. No one at any point in the chain thinks otherwise. It's a complete failure (and for the record, not just America's). The common thread in broken penal systems is a focus on punishment.

Why not just Norway's system + life sentences reserved for violent repeat offenders and sadistic/serial killers?

If someone isnt a danger what is the point of a life sentence? It is just like bulldozing money onto a bonfire.

Phill,

Do you think there should be no focus on punishment whatsoever, only rehabilitation?

So let's someone's committed a horrific crime, but a team of top psychiatrists determined that it was just a one-off event, the person expresses genuine remorse for their crimes, and so the psychiatrists believe the person represents no danger and could remain a productive and law-abiding member of society? Would you be in favour of not sentencing them to any prison time at all, because, after all, that would just be "bulldozing money onto a bonfire"?