> "Is the Death Penalty Extropian?"
Ah, the death penalty! One of my favorite topics... I dunno whether it's Extropian (only Max knows ;-) , but it certainly is rational.
> We welcome all comments on this, please state your reasons as
> thoroughly as you can.
> First of all, by definition, the death penalty is not murder.
> Murder: 1) to kill a person unlawfully and with malice. (Websters
> new world dictionary)
> Second,I feel that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment
> for the unlawful and malicious killing of a fellow human being.
Yes. I'd like to add that IMO, the punishment should fit the crime; serial killers/mass murderers/people who tortured their victims etc. should receive harsher death penalties than someone who kills just one victim in a relatively humane way. I also support corporal punishment for violent offenders, btw.
> I feel that the death penalty has it's problems however, it is
> often applied with a racial bias, and when it is decided upon, it
> takes too long to administer.
Of course, the whole justice system would have to be revised
before any executions can start.
--"insanity" plea is abolished. --no age limit --no gender/race/whatever bias --convictions on hard evidence only, such as forensics,video/audio footage (nation-wide camera system in public places with central databanks)
For good measure:
--all "victimless crimes" legalized. Police can focus on the real crimes, and much less officers are needed (you save $$$). --national (global?) DNA and fingerprint databank (for *all* citizens), of course with very restricted access and firm penalties for abuse. --jails must be automated. No physical contact between guards and inmates or between the inmates themselves. 1 person per cell, wholesome food and possibility for exercise, but no recreation. Possibly self-sustained labor camps.
--massive centralized surveillance system, for evidence and prevention. All government agents, including the police and judiciary, must wear video/audio equipment at all times while on the job. --heavily automated justice system (one for the whole country, or better yet, world). Precedents are binding, as consequence is one of the pillars of justice.(*)
--society (especially the economy) must be automated as much as possible so that everyone can receive a decent standard of living *without having to work*.
--the press is not allowed to reveal details of criminal investigations and trials, unless cleared by the authorities. Names are only released after sentencing.
--right to keep and bear arms --right to kill intruders (on private property) --right to kill in self-defense --right to hold a duel (in specially designated places or on privateproperty that's sufficiently isolated. The entire event must be recorded by camera, all involved must participate out of free will). --people who fear that they might commit a (violent) crime because of "urges", can get free treatment from the government.
(*)[Justice: punishing harmful acts in a consequent manner and so that the punishment fits the crime]
> I do not feel deterrence is a prerequisite for it's existence, but
> I feel that if it was applied fairly, equitably, and quickly, it
> could have a deterrent effect.
Agreed. The surveillance system in combination with relatively few but firmly enforced laws should virtually wipe out crime. I bet that with a system like this you could even put Russia back on its feet...
Conclusion: if you want to do capital punishment right, it has to be part of a much larger package of progressive and rational amendments. In the justice system as seen in for example America today, I wouldn't recommend capital punishment.