Death Penalty.

[krimsonviper]

zer...66348

The story in the thread has me wondering again, why, oh why, don't we execute people under life time sentences? Why am I paying for someone to be in jail for their entire life, when we can just kill them and cut the cost? I mean, it's not like they're going to get out any time soon right?

[szh]

zer...66348

The story in the thread has me wondering again, why, oh why, don't we execute people under life time sentences? Why am I paying for someone to be in jail for their entire life, when we can just kill them and cut the cost? I mean, it's not like they're going to get out any time soon right?

Note: I am in favor of the death penalty (in certain situations).

The difficulty lies in the fact that we have seen situations where the life sentence (as well as a death penalty) was imposed on the wrong individual. Or the wrong crime. Sometimes, innocent people have been caught up in a no-win trap. Etc., etc., etc.

Given that mistakes like this can and do occur (albeit not common), and the fact that the consequences of a mistake are kinda irreversible if we are hasty about the imposition of the death penalty, I think it is fair to allow time to make sure that the judgement is as accurate as we can make it.

Read "The Court of Last Resort" by Erle Stanley Gardner (may be out of print, but available in libraries) to get some real life stories - old ones though. Also read the "The Patchwork Girl" by Larry Niven for a fictional story about what can happen (not death penalty, but seriously similar "haste to judgement" situation).

Z

[arabdrifter]

kill them all. especially rapist and murder's. they re a dime a dozen. better world without these azzhats anyway.

[krimsonviper]

Note: I am in favor of the death penalty (in certain situations).

The difficulty lies in the fact that we have seen situations where the life sentence (as well as a death penalty) was imposed on the wrong individual. Or the wrong crime. Sometimes, innocent people have been caught up in a no-win trap. Etc., etc., etc.

Given that mistakes like this can and do occur (albeit not common), and the fact that the consequences of a mistake are kinda irreversible if we are hasty about the imposition of the death penalty, I think it is fair to allow time to make sure that the judgement is as accurate as we can make it.

Read "The Court of Last Resort" by Erle Stanley Gardner (may be out of print, but available in libraries) to get some real life stories - old ones though. Also read the "The Patchwork Girl" by Larry Niven for a fictional story about what can happen (not death penalty, but seriously similar "haste to judgement" situation).

Z

Ok, I see where you are coming from, but what about the people like the guy from that posted story? He's a bold faced killer, along with many, others that fall to his type, that don't deserve my dime. It's nice having a medium, but sometimes it's just annoying having people from jail cells having soldiers commiting more crimes.

I was watching the History channel and they had a documentary on ganglands where leaders WANT to be in jail. These type of people, why can't we just execute them? It's blantantly obvious what they are doing, we just can't prove it. Why should we have to put up with this?

[marlin29311]

zer...66348

The story in the thread has me wondering again, why, oh why, don't we execute people under life time sentences? Why am I paying for someone to be in jail for their entire life, when we can just kill them and cut the cost? I mean, it's not like they're going to get out any time soon right?

Death penalty actually costs more than life in prision. Death sentences carry a mandatory appeals process.

[szh]

kill them all. especially rapist and murder's. they re a dime a dozen. better world without these azzhats anyway.

I certainly agree with the sentiment.

But, what if you have the wrong guy accused of the crime?

Z

[OriginalWheelman]

Death penalty actually costs more than life in prision. Death sentences carry a mandatory appeals process.

I'd like to see proof on this.

[marlin29311]

I'd like to see proof on this.

I remember learning about this in high school and then again in college...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...nalty

Just one of many many google hits on the subject. The problem is the lawyer fees, etc - not the actual cost of the injection.

[lets_GET_it_ON]

I agree that they should give time to ensure the person in question is indeed guilty. There should be no doubt that the person is guilty, if there is question, the death penalty can hold off. If the person is without a doubt guilty, then death penalty for them.

When it comes to lethal injection, i must say that there are certain restrictions that i don't think are necessary. Suchas, sterilizing the needle before injecting a person or things along the line of that.

[OriginalWheelman]

I remember learning about this in high school and then again in college...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...nalty

Just one of many many google hits on the subject. The problem is the lawyer fees, etc - not the actual cost of the injection.

Ok that's an obviously biased website.

Secondly, who pays the legal fees? If it costs the state less thats what's important here.

[marlin29311]

Ok that's an obviously biased website.

Secondly, who pays the legal fees? If it costs the state less thats what's important here.

It's kinda difficult to find the non-biased ones (either way, that is), so i just put up the one i found first.

The legal fees are paid by you, the tax payer. The problem with the costs on the death penalty is in the trial phase - with expert witnesses, discovery phase, etc. There is a lot of research to be done by the DA's office (or prosecutor, depending on the state), and that all costs a lot of money. There was an article in the WSJ about it a few years ago, about how some counties wanted to do away with it because of the costs to do it.

My opinion is that the trial should cost the same amount irregardless of death penalty or life in prison. I mean, the overall physical costs of LIP vs DP is cheaper towards the death penalty, because we arent' supporting the criminal as long, but legal proceedings and what not cost so damn much.

[ArizonaG35]

The difficulty lies in the fact that we have seen situations where the life sentence (as well as a death penalty) was imposed on the wrong individual. Or the wrong crime. Sometimes, innocent people have been caught up in a no-win trap. Etc., etc., etc.

Given that mistakes like this can and do occur (albeit not common), and the fact that the consequences of a mistake are kinda irreversible if we are hasty about the imposition of the death penalty, I think it is fair to allow time to make sure that the judgement is as accurate as we can make it.

Z

Okay... I have to chime in on this one. It should be known upfront that I am a strong proponent of the death penalty and have witnessed first hand in my personal life the tragedy that a murderer can inflict upon their victims.

Although I am a firm believer in capital punishment, I do not paint such a broad brush on the topic. Each murder/rape case is unique and so should the punishment. Even though mistakes have been made in the past and a FEW individuals have been unjustly convicted, in light of DNA evidence, the margin of error has been minimized to nil. I propose that if convicted of murder (not manslaughter) and irreputable DNA evidence proves guilt, then the death penalty shall be MANDATORY.

Why is it that technology has advanced so greatly to prove without a doubt someones guilt, but the punishment hasn't evolved with that technology? Why do we still value a criminals right to live when they undisputedly took the life of another individual? Why have we as a society completely abandoned the victims rights and focused solely on the best interest of the criminal of such heineous crimes? Seems backwards to me...

To the individual that posted that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment... that's whats wrong with our system. Although I do not believe that to be the truth, I'm certain that it is VERY costly to preserve and protect the rights of the criminals in this twisted system. The justice system places so much emphasis on preserving the lives of murderers and so little on trying to swiftly impose punishment.

According to the FBI, only 61% of murders are solved in the US as of 2007 and this rate is rapidly declining. I attribute this to the current justice system being so overloaded with burdeon of proof and the appeal process being so skewed towards criminals rights. That means that 49% of victims are never given justice. That's unacceptable! The only thing that brings peace to victims and their families is justice and there are far too many people out there not having closure on these crimes.

I'm not trying to fish for sympathy as the poor victim here, I've been given peace, but know that murder affects victims families for the rest of their lives. Next time anyone tells you that a death sentence isn't fair... remember this...

- Every few years I have to go to a parole hearing and convince a parole board to not let my Moms murderer out of prison- I will forever have to live with the vision of a gruesome crime scene- I will forever have to explain to my children why they don't have a grandma- I will forever know the pain that murder inflicts on people

That's my life sentence... fair?

[Jesda]

I want to support the death penalty, but I don't know if I trust the government enough to perform that kind of task.

[480sx]

I want to support the death penalty, but I don't know if I trust the government enough to perform that kind of task.

Hah, +1

[Armelius]

You have chose money over someone's life. You would use the state to get rid of someone that you do not like. Very sad choices.

[krimsonviper]

You have chose money over someone's life. You would use the state to get rid of someone that you do not like. Very sad choices.

[themadscientist]

Institutionalized murder is not civilized. The whole premise of a death penalty suggests that murder is acceptable only when performed by the state. Murder is murder; to suggest that only murder conducted by an individual without the trappings of authority is wrong is hypocritical. This makes any claim of a society to be civilized while it it shoots, hangs, gasses, electrocutes, or injects people it deems unworthy of life laughable.

[krimsonviper]

Institutionalized murder is not civilized. The whole premise of a death penalty suggests that murder is acceptable only when performed by the state. Murder is murder; to suggest that only murder conducted by an individual without the trappings of authority is wrong is hypocritical. This makes any claim of a society to be civilized while it it shoots, hangs, gasses, electrocutes, or injects people it deems unworthy of life, laughable.

I agree, murder is murder, but when the murderers in jail are able to commit murder on MY DIME it's INFURIATING. Maybe life timers should be ostracized from the outside world. We could save money by not having the post office come by and pick up/drop off mail, and telephone costs. Get rid of TV and other entertainment.

I say an eye for an eye when it comes to cold blooded murderers, why should we be easy on them? Simply to say "I'm better than you"? I find it a waste of my money to keep them alive and kicking.

I also look at it as, trying to scare people from commiting these crimes. ALOT of them are looking at jail time being nothing but time and an inconvenience. If they don't want to be killed, then they shouldn't have commited the crime or hang out with people who do.

[themadscientist]

Life imprisonment is the civilized solution. I think prison needs serious reform though. You would not want to spend a day in a prison I designed. There would be no opportunity to kill, you would see nobody. Locked in your tiny little cold concrete cell with the happy happy joy joy song playing 24-7 365. No TV, no weights, no sunlight, bright florescent lights on all the time, a mat on the floor and a ****ter. Want to read? Only prison-approved books, books that you can learn skills from that may help you unscrew your life if you will someday be released.

What makes the guy who flips the switch on the electric chair better than the guy in the seat? Really, on a fundamental level. Authority, a perception of justice, someone told him too? Murder is murder and the second murder doesn't undo the first; it simply satisfies a base need for revenge. That is not civilized, that is the behavior one expects from a criminal; the same element we claim to be better than. No, stick him in a box and let him slowly rot. He is removed from society, cannot do it again, and society holds on to the moral high ground that they claim they have.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Institutionalized murder is not civilized. The whole premise of a death penalty suggests that murder is acceptable only when performed by the state. Murder is murder; to suggest that only murder conducted by an individual without the trappings of authority is wrong is hypocritical. This makes any claim of a society to be civilized while it it shoots, hangs, gasses, electrocutes, or injects people it deems unworthy of life laughable.

Some people ARE unworthy of life. Or, if you don't like that perspective, how's this one: some people living puts other peoples' lives at risk. Those people cannot, should not, must not be allowed to live.

SOMEONE has to make that choice. Who would you have make it? I don't give a damn if it's "civilized" or not. It is necessary. There are many evils necessary in bettering the world for people who earn their keep. Those who SURRENDER THEIR HUMANITY and do not earn their keep are no better than an ant. Kill them that the rest may benefit. If you don't trust someone to choose wisely, that's one thing. But the argument that no one deserves to be put to death is ridiculous. Multiple-time child rapist/murderers shouldn't be murdered? REALLY? It's not worth the benefit of getting them OUT OF THIS WORLD so they can do no more harm? Murder is murder, absolutely. But some murders have benefits that are worth the cost. Especially when the cost is not a human, but scum who sacrificed their humanity the moment they decided to abuse the humanity of another person.

[krimsonviper]

I guess the mentality that I have is that I know I'm not better than them, and have no illusion that I am. I can commit murder, and will stoop to their level, if I have to, in order to keep them in line. They can be outstanding or average citizen like I can be.

My version of being better than them, is that I have the law on my side and their decision to commit murder even though they know their possibly outcome. They knew what the possible repurcussions are, and STILL chose to accept them, so now we get to deal it to them with how WE want.

If we can't kill them, then I fully agree with what you're suggesting. I would have no problems with leaving them with NOTHING but breath.

Futon, bread/crackers, water, toilet, no lights, no chance of seeing sunlight or breathing fresh air. This punishment would only be for those that are on life sentences.

[VersaMG08]

I have a better idea.

Anyone ever watched Death Race? That is a better way for prisoners to get the death penalty, instead of your typical electrocution or lethal injection. Let them race against each other with modded up death rigs and use them to kill each other until the they die!

To be serious, I think it's better to just dump all the bad guys in the middle of the pacific ocean and let them swim til they drown. It's a slow and easy way of dying. No need to waste government money by keeping them alive at our own expense.

[themadscientist]

Some people ARE unworthy of life. Or, if you don't like that perspective, how's this one: some people living puts other peoples' lives at risk. Those people cannot, should not, must not be allowed to live.

SOMEONE has to make that choice. Who would you have make it? .

You seem to have given yourself that right. I don't think anybody should be given that power. As I explained before a person locked in a box is no longer a danger to society, that satisfies your concern.

I don't give a damn if it's "civilized" or not. .

Then the entire basis for the rule of law and its system of punishments is not logical and rendered illegitimate. If you create laws outlawing murder but then allow for the institutional murder of those that commit the same crime upon someone else the whole idea turns in on itself and becomes hypocritical. To discard civilized behavior in certain instances because it serves an end reneders all laws that mandate civilized behavior moot.

It is necessary. There are many evils necessary in bettering the world for people who earn their keep. Those who SURRENDER THEIR HUMANITY and do not earn their keep are no better than an ant. Kill them that the rest may benefit. If you don't trust someone to choose wisely, that's one thing. But the argument that no one deserves to be put to death is ridiculous. Multiple-time child rapist/murderers shouldn't be murdered? REALLY? It's not worth the benefit of getting them OUT OF THIS WORLD so they can do no more harm? Murder is murder, absolutely. But some murders have benefits that are worth the cost. Especially when the cost is not a human, but scum who sacrificed their humanity the moment they decided to abuse the humanity of another person.

Again, this is not justice, this is not how a civilized person acts. This is purely to satisfy a lust for revenge. When the institution engages in the same activity as the guilty person no matter what the pretense it gives away any moral position to judge in the first place. Murder is murder and it IS NOT NECESSARY, it is DESIRED. Seperate the two. If a society claims to be civilized and impose rules of civility on its population then it must walk the walk.

[Jesda]

Its not that the state is never given the authority to kill human beings. In war, we do it to protect ourselves and our interests.

But does that authority extend to our own citizens, who also may be a threat to ourselves and our interests?

I think strongest argument against capital punishment is more practical than philosophical: our justice system is a clogged, biased, terrible mess. It mostly works, but it screws up pretty frequently. That's a big risk to take with a human life.

[MinisterofDOOM]

You seem to have given yourself that right. I don't think anybody should be given that power. As I explained before a person locked in a box is no longer a danger to society, that satisfies your concern.

Then the entire basis for the rule of law and its system of punishments is not logical and rendered illegitimate. If you create laws outlawing murder but then allow for the institutional murder of those that commit the same crime upon someone else the whole idea turns in on itself and becomes hypocritical. To discard civilized behavior in certain instances because it serves an end reneders all laws that mandate civilized behavior moot.



Again, this is not justice, this is not how a civilized person acts. This is purely to satisfy a lust for revenge. When the institution engages in the same activity as the guilty person no matter what the pretense it gives away any moral position to judge in the first place. Murder is murder and it IS NOT NECESSARY, it is DESIRED. Seperate the two. If a society claims to be civilized and impose rules of civility on its population then it must walk the walk.

The problem with your argument are the labels you're putting on things. You're thinking in someone elses' imaginary parameters. Pretend "justice" and "civilization" don't exist. Pretend those concepts do not exist. They are irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

Now: If one person is an obvious threat to other peoples' lives, what do you do? You allow that person to live, and perhaps kill those other people? That's still murder. And quite honestly I believe that if you let their murderer continue to live knowing he was a threat, his victims blood is on YOUR hands. You had the power to stop him, and you did not.You can't live in your idealistic "civilization is perfect" world in real life. Reality SUCKS. And in order to make the best of reality, we must do as necessary. Eliminating evil people who are a risk to good people is NOT "desired" it is NECESSARY. It is not a question of right or wrong, it is a question of survival. The bad people will not follow rules. You cannot combat them by following rules. They must be eliminated. Anyone worried about being "moral" or "civilized" needs to realize that those are invented ideals that are not real. What's real is that good people should not fall victim to bad people. And those bad people cannot be coddled.

It might be an issue of trust ("I don't think anybody should be given that power."). But NO ONE is perfect. You can't just abandon the protection of good people from bad because you're afraid of a mistake. That is a coward's way out. The end justifies the means without question. So you're not following your own invented set of morals when you kill a killer. Who cares? You do...no one else does. Certainly not the people who benefit. And if you kill a serial killer, that serial killer's potential victims' grandchildren aren't going to have a problem with your "murders." It's trading one life for another. And the idea that some lives are not worth more than others is DISGUSTING when you consider the evil people making up the one side of the comparison.

Also, the death penalty offers a nice incentive to criminals. If you KNOW you're risking death if caught, you're less likely to commit your crime. If you know you're looking forward to life with paid meals and cable TV, you might not take things so seriously. Plus, the idea of death is always more immediate and visceral to the psyche than some jail cell.

And yes, I would like to have the right to choose who lives or dies. There are a lot of evil people I would like to sentence to immediate death. I would do it myself. Because I don't hide behind invented morals or "civilized" thinking. I know good, I know evil, and I know that the later cannot be tolerated. Morals are a way for people to help themselves feel good about their decisions. Morals have no bearing on reality. Good and evil are not so nebulous. A person who takes the lives of others for personal gain is indisputably evil. What WRONG is there in eliminating that evil person? Certainly nothing that could outweight the GOOD gained from their death.

When MANY lives benefit from the loss of ONE life, and that one life is the life of a criminal who has no respect for ANY life, there is no wrong in the taking of that one life.

[szh]

Okay... I have to chime in on this one. It should be known upfront that I am a strong proponent of the death penalty and have witnessed first hand in my personal life the tragedy that a murderer can inflict upon their victims.

I remember your prior post on the topic and accepted/continue to understand your position entirely! And, again, I should mention that I am in favor of the death penalty ... in certain situations.

I just want it to be damn accurate when we pull the plug on a human being, that we are as sure as we can be that an innocent person did not lose their life - it is not like we can reverse the process if we are wrong in a particular case.

Z