An Ethical Framework for Last-Resort Capital Punishment Neutralization

In considering the abolition of capital punishment, it is essential to recognize that, while generally prohibited, there may exist exceptional cases where its use is justified as a necessary, last-resort measure for safeguarding society.

Abstract:

This paper proposes a new framework for the ethical and highly restricted use of capital punishment, shifting it away from the traditional justice system and into a globally supervised, depoliticized safeguard mechanism. The goal is to eliminate only those individuals whose continued existence presents an unavoidable and ongoing danger, even under maximum security incarceration, while ensuring that capital punishment does not become a normalized practice.

---

1. Introduction
Current capital punishment systems, particularly in the United States, suffer from systemic flaws, including wrongful convictions, racial and economic bias, and the use of execution as a punitive measure rather than a last resort. This paper explores an alternative approach that maintains the principle that the state should not execute its citizens, except in the most extreme and unquestionable cases where neutralization is necessary for societal and institutional safety.

---

2. Core Principles

• Absolute Exceptionality: The default stance is against state-sanctioned execution, with only singular and extreme cases considered.

• Depoliticization: The decision-making process is removed from national justice and penal systems to prevent bias, corruption, or overreach.

• Global Ethical Oversight: The process is governed by a rotating panel that includes experts from allied nations that do not practice conventional capital punishment.

• Non-Punitive Purpose: The goal is not retribution but the elimination of unavoidable, ongoing threats to the safety of others.

---

3. Structural Framework

3.1. Selection Process for Review

• Prisons and justice systems cannot nominate individuals for execution.

• An independent, neutral pre-panel assesses the most extreme cases based on clear criteria of ongoing and unavoidable danger.

• This initial review narrows the pool to a manageable number for final panel evaluation.

3.2. Composition of the Evaluation Panel

• Panelists are chosen from a rotating pool of experts from multiple allied nations.

• Members serve limited, staggered terms to ensure fresh perspectives.

• The panel operates in complete secrecy to prevent public and political interference.

3.3. AI as an Advisory Tool

• AI assists in analyzing behavioral patterns and assessing future risks.

• AI is not an equal decision-making entity but serves as a supplementary analysis tool.

• Future evaluations may expand AI’s role if proven reliable.

---

4. Safeguards & Ethical Considerations

• Transparency in Process, Not Identities: While panel deliberations remain secret, procedural transparency ensures ethical oversight.

• Permanent Limits on Scope: Built-in safeguards prevent system expansion beyond the most extreme and rare cases.

• Continuous Review & Adaptation: The methodology and execution process are subject to periodic ethical review.

While the process must remain highly restricted and limited to extreme cases, examples of extreme individuals can help clarify the need for a framework of careful evaluation. Below are a few examples of inmates who may represent the type of danger we aim to assess under this methodology:

1. The Unrepentant Serial Killer:
   Inmates like Ted Bundy, who committed a series of brutal murders and showed no remorse, continued to manipulate others even while incarcerated. Such individuals, given their clear and ongoing dangerous nature, could be considered for extreme evaluation under the proposed framework.

2. The Prison Kingpin:
   Inmates who maintain control over criminal enterprises while incarcerated, like Richard Ramirez, may continue to pose a substantial threat to public safety even after their imprisonment. Their ability to exert influence from within prison walls needs to be a factor in the evaluation process.

3. The Political or Ideological Extremist:
   Inmates who promote radical ideologies, such as Timothy McVeigh, may have lasting influence on others, even from prison. These individuals may continue to inspire violence and contribute to a broader societal threat, justifying their further evaluation.

4. The Serial Rapist Who Continues to Engage in Manipulation:
   Dangerous offenders like Ed Kemper, who demonstrate a continuing ability to manipulate others and pose threats, even while incarcerated, could be candidates for further assessment under this ethical framework.

5. The Mentally Deranged and Irredeemable Offender:
   Inmates suffering from severe psychological disorders who show no potential for rehabilitation, such as individuals with disorganized, severe psychosis, could also be considered for inclusion in this type of extreme evaluation, if their ongoing threat is clear.

6. The Extremely Dangerous and Uncontainable Offender:
   Those individuals who not only fit one or more of the above categories but are also extremely difficult to contain in a secure environment—continuing to escape, harm others, or otherwise undermine the safety of the institution—would be considered as well. Their continued ability to evade containment and perpetrate violence, despite being incarcerated, adds an additional layer of justification for further evaluation under this framework.

---

5. Conclusion & Next Steps

The objective of this proposal is not to justify or expand capital punishment but to provide a model that acknowledges its inherent dangers while addressing the rare instances where complete neutralization is ethically and practically necessary. Further discussion and refinement are required to develop specific implementation protocols while maintaining the framework’s core principles.

---

6. Discussion & Future Considerations
This paper aims to generate discussion and input from experts in ethics, law, and international human rights. The next step is to convene panels to refine selection criteria, oversight mechanisms, and safeguards to ensure the system remains strictly limited in scope and ethically sound.

For more on this...

1. Real-World Application

In many countries, capital punishment remains a contentious issue. Traditional systems often fail to account for biases and errors in the justice system. By exploring this new ethical framework, we can potentially shift how the state deals with irreversible dangers. While not advocating for widespread execution, this framework offers a way to address extreme cases where dangerous individuals, who pose a continuous threat, might need to be neutralized. This would not be a step toward a return to widespread executions but an acknowledgment of rare, extreme cases that require specialized ethical oversight.

Questions for readers:

• How do you feel about the possibility of reviving capital punishment in an ethical, highly restricted manner?

• Do you think there’s a way to reconcile safety with the fundamental rights of individuals?

2. Public Perception and Debate

The issue of capital punishment often sparks intense debates between those who believe in its deterrent effect and those who view it as morally indefensible. This framework challenges the traditional approach by introducing a system focused on neutralization rather than punishment. It’s an attempt to bring fairness and reasoning to what is often an emotional and polarized debate.
By removing political bias and integrating international perspectives, the hope is to prevent capital punishment from becoming a political tool or an emotionally-driven response to crime.

Questions for readers:

• Does the idea of external oversight make this framework more palatable?

• How much influence should the public have in decisions regarding life and death in the justice system?

3. International Perspectives

This framework suggests that the decision-making process could be informed by international experts, particularly from countries that do not practice capital punishment. These countries, having rejected the death penalty, bring an important ethical perspective, ensuring that the framework is guided by human rights principles.
Additionally, the rotating nature of the panel provides diversity of thought and avoids the potential for entrenched biases. This system could foster global collaboration on criminal justice reform, blending international ethics with localized safety concerns.

Questions for readers:

• What role should international bodies play in determining justice policies in sovereign nations?

• Can countries with no capital punishment experience still contribute meaningfully to the debate?

4. Future of Capital Punishment

While this framework doesn't advocate for the widespread use of capital punishment, it offers a potential middle ground. It challenges the assumption that the death penalty must either be abolished entirely or widely enforced. Instead, it emphasizes extreme cases where neutralization is necessary.
This model could serve as a critical test case to determine whether such a framework could reduce capital punishment to an absolute last resort, or if it should be phased out entirely.

Questions for readers:

• Do you think this kind of framework could signal the end of capital punishment in practice?

• Could it be a temporary solution while society moves toward alternatives?

5. Engagement and Feedback

The framework outlined here is just the beginning of what could be an ongoing conversation. The ethical implications of executing someone—even under the strictest conditions—are far-reaching. It’s important to continue discussing the moral complexities involved, including the potential for mistakes, corruption, and bias.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this framework—whether you agree, disagree, or have suggestions for improvement.

Questions for readers:

• What parts of this framework do you agree with or challenge?

• How would you personally define "irreversible danger," and should it ever justify execution?

6. Case Studies

There are several real-world examples of extreme cases where individuals have continued to harm society despite being incarcerated. For instance, Ted Bundy, a notorious serial killer, continued to manipulate and deceive others even while imprisoned. Similarly, Richard Ramirez, the "Night Stalker," retained significant influence, with ongoing communication with fans and potential followers even from behind bars.
These examples highlight the ongoing danger that some inmates represent, even when locked away from society. It’s these types of individuals that this framework seeks to evaluate, not as a means of revenge, but to prevent further harm.

Questions for readers:

• Do you think cases like Bundy or Ramirez warrant a closer look under this new framework?

• How do we balance public safety with the potential for rehabilitation?

7. Ethical Challenges

One of the most important aspects of this framework is its inherent ethical tension. Even the most dangerous individuals have rights, and the decision to take a life cannot be taken lightly.
There are also challenges in ensuring fairness and avoiding biases. While the global oversight panel is designed to remove national political influences, there’s always the risk that subjective views, such as those based on race, class, or public sentiment, could creep into evaluations.
Artificial intelligence could help mitigate some of these biases by offering objective data about an inmate’s behavior and risks, but even AI must be carefully monitored to ensure it doesn’t inadvertently introduce bias.

Questions for readers:

• What safeguards would you suggest to prevent bias from creeping into the panel’s decisions?

• How do we ensure AI’s role remains ethical in evaluating individuals for this extreme process?

8. Call for Further Discussion

Ultimately, this proposal is just the start of an important and ongoing ethical conversation. It’s crucial that we open this dialogue to lawyers, ethicists, psychologists, and the broader public to ensure this framework is thoroughly examined. Feedback and public input are key to making sure this system doesn’t devolve into a dangerous precedent for widespread executions.

Call to Action:
I encourage you to share your thoughts, challenge the ideas presented, or suggest ways in which this framework could evolve. Together, we can create a more balanced and just system for addressing the rarest, most dangerous criminals.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Legal Assassinations?

I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't legalize Presidential assassinations. IF we EVER have a president for longer than two four year terms and thus the agent of American realignment reaping a medal as well as financial rewards. I would suggest a military coup, but that never seems to go well and is unquestionably illegal.

Let me just mention we don't assassinate leaders of foreign counties. Though with some like JFK apparently, we do domestically. Allegedly. Regarding foreign leaders, the thought is that if we do it to them, they'd do it to us, so...stalemate. It's hard enough as it is for the Secret Service to protect the standing POTUS from not anymore our own domestic nuts, but actually decent people wishing to have a decent president once (or ever) again.

I do not believe in capital punishment, murder by State or otherwise, typically Although I will agree that there are some who have no useful potential for humanity and should be put down like a dog and with prejudice.

No, I'm not talking about the charlatan and criminal "First Citizen" Donald Trump, but rather some serial killers. And there's really only a few like that. There are allegedly around 300 serial murderers active in America at any one time. Even Charles Mason does not qualify in my book. He's just a nutcase.

You really have no idea what's out there. Yet, Trump is giving us an insight into one foe we never knew about and now wish we still didn't, but ...we need to.

IF Trump lasts longer than a single term, which he shouldn't, but if he lasts longer than two terms as POTUS, which again he shouldn't, however IF enough of America still delusionally and ignorantly, and stupidly somehow allows someone like Trump more than the legal maximum of two presidential terms, merely in order to keep us from being the banana republican Trump so dearly wants us to be and desires for us in order to allow him dictator (or king) status along with his childish dictatorial pleasures of near Godhood, he will then have to be removed from office, literally... by any means possible.

Hopefully, this will not become an issue. But IF we did that, we'd definitely need to act. China just made their own president "king" for life. Which I'm told he can still be removed if he acts up. But doing such a thing, elevating a personality cult in such a way, is ludicrous at the head of any nation.

Look, personality cults, and nationalism are to be avoided at all costs.

Now I'm NOT calling for this now. I'm facing and responding to a potential dire reality in our near future. One that needs to be addressed so we avoid this necessity hopefully by Congressional decrees and legally passed laws.

Simply retiring someone like Trump, someone with that kind of money, Klout, power, will not be enough. Like the Mafia boss who rules from within his lifetime prison sentence, better for America and this planet if he is eliminated.

Potentially I suppose, Trump could go to a CIA black site. Forever. It's really what he deserves.

Look at our prime and best example in all this. Vladimir Putin. How's getting rid of him working out for Russia? He keeps coming back like a bad case of National (international) herpes!

Could you IMAGINE nineteen years of a Donald Trump? Those poor people in Russia? And Putin is far more functional than Trump. But also a far more functional criminal and essentially, murderer.

We do not WANT that in America (though you could argue Trump is our version). It is anathema to our existence, to our foundation, to the desires of the Founding Fathers' intentions in making America. Our "Great Experiment" is being seriously tested and I hope NOT, failing.

Anyway, assassination in that contest is not criminal under those circumstances. It's more like State sanctioned murder which we have now and politely call it, capital punishment. We also have State sanctioned murder in war, we just don't call it that because it makes people feel bad, citizens won't support murder much, and it makes the soldiers in the field feel bad.

Even though they frequently know quite well they are murderers and come home with PTS from it. Aside from all the other reasonable reasons they end up with that perfectly natural and normal response to trauma. Unless it gets pushed over the type and does become a permanent disorder.

Anyway, THAT would be patriotic. Not nationalistic. And would need to be passed... legally, by Congressional demand. More than eight years of the holding presidential office? It goes instantly to the SEALs perhaps, to end that reign. Or I suppose Russian would be perfectly happy to poison the guy with polonium. They, Putin, do love their radioactive poisons.

But, this is not a Constitutional crisis. We have a Constitution for that purpose. This is a moral crisis where Trump supporters simply cannot see past their hand on a ballot and so, they will be the death of us. If we are not prudent and productive for the welfare of all. Including them.

Now, let's see how long this lasts online.

This is an idea we could franchise.

To Russia with good old boy and faux Republican himself, Vlady Putin.

And maybe elsewhere. Assad comes to mind. Some guy in Saudi Arabia comes to mind. I'm sure we won't run out of candidates.

Citizens finally freeing themselves from some real rat bastards!

Or, we can just get back to facing reality, believing in things like science and facts, put away our childish things like religions and bigotry and racism and abusing others for our own satiation, and act like modern adult Americans.

It's all really up to you. All of you. All of US.

Dead men walking

I've been conflicted about this for a while. But I think I found a way that works for me.

Should we have the death penalty or not? Sure, why not. Why? Because some people should be destroyed off the face of the earth. But, I bet within the United States, there may only be one or two of those, if that, every year. 

I've confused people most of my life. I don't believe in killing people for much of any reason. I do think you have the right to kill someone trying to kill you, however. I mean, it's one for one, right? And they are trying to kill you, you have the right to stop them. You should try not to kill them but stop them, but hey, sometimes                 passion just gets the better of you. But then if they started it they asked for it. 

Okay, but for the most part we shouldn't be killing people. (War is bad says Subliminal Man). 

If several people are trying to kill you, really you shouldn't be trying to kill a bunch of people to save yourself. Yet then again, if they are choosing to try to kill you and you are better at it than they are, who's to say that you shouldn't, as some would say, use your God given talents at their utmost to save your skin? 

Right?

So fine. What about State sponsored killing, like Capital Punishment, the Death Penalty? When I was first in college in my first Philosophy class, our Prof. brought this up one day as a learning experience. I said I thought it was okay for the State to have the death penalty. But he pointed out (many things I won't go into here) that it is basically State sponsored murdered and a Government should never kill it's people to whom it serves. It's just ethically wrong.

Okay then, maybe he had a point. And so I passed that class, I graduated, years passed and here we are.

Now we have Florida who has been letting go like one in three prisoners on death row because they have found that in all the time since their trial and verdict, they were actually innocent as proven by various things like DNA and confessions. Or Texas who are about to celebrate their 500th execution as of mid June 2013, next week. 

The Colorado Governor just interceded to keep the death penalty live in their state, while signing an order so as not to be responsible for any executions during the rest of his term as Governor. He upholds the death penalty but doesn't want anything to do with it, himself.

So, where does that leave us? Well, I know where it leaves me, because I have an idea. 

Go ahead, keep the death penalty. But let's do this, make it possible only if and when the Governor him (or her) self actually goes to the room execution chamber, and personally executes the prisoner. 

Why? Because what we seem to have here is too many people not caring or thinking deeply enough about the situation and so they just let it continue on. Much like with Right Wing Conservatives who are staunchly against the LGBT community or Gay marriage, they are all against it until it turns out to be their son, or daughter, or someone close to them. Then it is fully and finally brought home to them, it becomes personal and so they tend to turn away from their beliefs and change their mind, altering their original position to one of agreeing with say, Gay marriage. 

The death penalty is a very similar and strange animal. The problem is that people seem to be too divorced from it to make a fully qualified decision. So let's make it personal. If someone is really so bad that they have to be executed by the state, then let the highest authority in that state carry out the execution, personally. I think it might only take one execution for one to come to realize that this is a bad thing. It is cruel and unusual punishment to hold someone for years, and then on a day set very much previously, to take that individual knowingly and murder them.

But what about their victims, you say? So we should become like them, and kill them? Besides, isn't life in jail far worse than death? 

Here's the thing. If you have someone that is a seriously deranged serial murderer, someone truly and wholly evil, then I do think that they should be destroyed. But even they could possibly be saved, make a turn around at some point. Still, I'll grant you it's very possible or even likely, that there are people like that who do need to be not only removed from society and imprisoned, but removed from life itself. I'm also willing to recognize that these types of people are very few and far between. 

Even so, we really need to stop killing people as a nation, both internally and more so yet, externally. War is bad, necessary on occasion, but far too many times we have been illegitimately pulled into it. And too many times we have killed too many innocents in the strife and fog of war. But so too have we killed innocent people through the death penalty. If Florida is accurate in releasing people who are innocent at so high a rate as reported, a third, then how many other states have killed how many innocent people over the years? 

I would argue that if we kill even one innocent person it is one too many and we need to stop. One innocent life is more important than all of the guilty lives we could execute. After all, one thing that Time does really well is release information, it loosen lips, allows knowledge to rise to the surface of the social conscience. 

For those who are truly dangerous and evil, I really wouldn't have trouble executing them. And I don't think many who hold a position of power would. But if it were someone who had a moment of anger, who had grown up with a chip on their shoulder and just need to be locked up, then they might just have a problem. If for no other reason than that, we have to consider that old adage, "There but for the grace of God, go I."

Yes some of those on death row are real bastards I'm sure, and have caused a lot of people a lot of grief. But when you also take into consideration those who have to handle these people on a daily basis, those who have to deal with them leading up to their death and those who have to actually execute them on their day of atonement, we have to consider, why would we want to do THAT to our own citizens, either?

I once heard that considering how expensive it is through trials and appeals and so on it is really cheaper to keep a prisoner for life in prison, than execute him. Which surprised me because I would think, you flip a switch, inject to fluid, bingo, money saved. But not really and certainly not assured. And so too there are non-monetary costs we should take into account. 

I'll say it clearly, if someone is trying to kill me (especially if I don't deserve it, which is another matter entirely), I will have no problem killing them instead. Once I know there is nothing left for me to do but kill them, I'm 100% behind the idea. Of course, getting to that realization is what typically gets good people killed and gives the bad guys the edge in being able to more easily kill some unsuspecting victim. They don't have to consider, they just act. They kill. They have the element of surprise. They are murderers and cowards.

However, once you start talking about my Government killing American citizens, I have a serious issue with  it. I have a problem with them killing non-Americans too, but on a list, Americans are definitely on top for who NOT to kill. Consider for a moment that ultimate rule of empathy, "what if one day I'M in that situation, and worse, what if I'm INNOCENT?"

This country needs to start advancing again. We need to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps (we've done it before) and get our act together. We need to get smarter, deeper, funnier, happier, more benevolent and stronger. And Strong, does not mean you kill people. It is after all, harder not to.

I've always said that I always try never to lie, because it makes you smarter as you have to think your way around things. Any idiot can lie, just say the opposite of truth. But try finding a way, any way but lying and it's not so easy. Is it. Probably why so many people lie so much. Telling the truth also sets up a kind of Karma for you as people start to realize you are an honest and loyal type, dependable at least in your word.

America needs to find the high ground again and live it. Inflate our mind, body and spirits and not just inflate our egos and pride as we have done for far too long and far too much in recent decades. We are a great nation and a great people. And we can be more so. If we just have a mind to.

We just need to start looking more closely at the things we do, to be more honest with ourselves, more open, more rational. 

Killing our own citizens, just isn't one of those things that will put us on that road upward and into the future with grand prospects. Because if we don't make some changes like these, we can only have more to look forward to of the same. More and more right wing nutzo propaganda, more ridiculous religious fervor, more partisan patronizing, more stopping intellectual progress, more, more, more...but not of the things we need more of. 

For one, we don't need more dead men walking....