EtsoShex Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Cruel, but effective. I dislike it, but agree with it. It would discourage me from any sort of criminal activity of any kind, which is the purpose, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I'm not going to debate the morality of the death penalty right now, but from a fiscal perspective, Evangelion's viewpoint is totally incorrect. The cost of putting someone in prison for life (including all costs) or other punishments is actually less than the amount of money the federal government spends on the average case in which the death penalty is sought. This is due to a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the American appeals process is unending, long-lasting, and costs a very, very great deal of money, and virtually all who are convicted with a death penalty charge appeal as far as they can go. In the case where the accused is poor, the government not only has to pay to prosecute him, it also has to pay for his defense as well. And before one suggests that the appeals process be removed or shortened, even with it as lengthy and cumbersome as it is, there have STILL been people found innocent by new technology, post-mortem. And, of course, the people found innocent while on death row. The death penalty sounds cheap, but it's actually quite expensive; bar none, in fact, the most expensive to the government. Twendrist, a few thousand on injections? Try millions PER case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belegriel Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Then stop letting them appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal. Charge them, try them, kill them. That solves both problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Only because there are stupid laws regarding it. For example: Let's say a man's on death row. He's scheduled to be executed on Tuesday. Monday night, he picks a fight, loses, and is knocked into a coma. He can't be executed until he wakes up, meaning the government has to spend even more money keeping him alive. I'm up for a same-day policy. The minute the judge says "I sentence you to death by lethal injection," the bastard should be walked down the hall to the aptly named "Lethal Injection Room". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Thats because there are too many loopholes in the law. I understand 50 years ago it was difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but these days with DNA evidence, it is hard not to get diffinate results. The less time in court, the less money it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Twendrist, a few thousand on injections? Try millions PER case. One 9mm bullet is about 15 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 One word. Mistrial. Again, there have been innocents put on death row, and there have been innocents convicted. Period. It was so bad at one point that the death penalty was actually suspended by a state (I don't recall what) for the sheer number of misconvictions. Cases involving racism (check), deliberate stacking of the jury against the defendant for racial reasons (check), prosecutorial misconduct (check), lawyer incompetence (check), police deception (check), or just flat out mistakes being made in gathering the evidence. Evangelion, again, that sounds like it's the truth, but it isn't. It isn't the cost of housing them/feeding them; those costs are miniscule. It's the cost of the appeals process and the trials. Simply put, trials cost money, and no one plea bargains to get executed. Nor does removing the appeals process improve the system. Twendrist, too much CSI/Law and Order . It's not nearly that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Implementor Anume Posted November 5, 2006 Implementor Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Man, Bel, you are a sick, sick person :eek: I can see how you would have to rise at night for weeks to get your kids to sleep again when they have nightmares about that hanging, let alone the follow up damage... Violence is never a solution. People who do not fit into society by their behavior (killing, raping) should be separated from that society. To fight fire with fire however will only get the flames burning higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 It's true... many people have been proven innocent or guilty with DNA testing and what not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WagesofSin Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Do we even know how they do hanging in Iraq? Hanging is actually a pretty quick and painless death if done right(at least in the west). The rope snaps the neck and death comes quickly. The only time someone actually strangles to death is when it is done wrong or the procedure is specifically done to achieve the strangling effect. I maintain my position that death is not a form of punishment. It's retribution for those living is all. I guess there will never be peace on earth as long as we revel in revenge. I'll leave it at that, don't want to make this thread another DK's and Religion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 The majority of policework and cases are still conducted without it, simply because DNA evidence is not always left behind at the scene, or because there is a huge backlog of evidence to process (sometimes years!), and many other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belegriel Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 It has nothing to do with revenge from my point of view. It is about justice, old school style. It's not perfect but neither is the present system. Peace on earth? LOL, peace sells, but who's buying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I thought the states that use the death penalty more often actually has not had any decline in number of crimes commited? I don't think people are intimidated by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear, the Angel's Name Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I believe in the death penalty, but I have my own beliefs on who does and who does not deserve to die. The man who killed the guy that molested his daughter? Good for him, I'd do the same thing. Except I would probably be a hundred times more brutal in the molester's death than that guy was. I have a very violent and vindictive sense of retribution. I think people should suffer the same treatment that they give to animals, for one. I had a 'friend' back in high school who twisted the head off of a girl's kitten at her party because he was mad at her. Those kinds of people deserve to be castrated, at the very least. Back then, I was just a runt and was on ritalin, but now, such an act would flare my temper to heights it hasn't reached in a while now. It makes me angry just thinking about it. I'd like to twist his neck myself. I can safely tell any of you here, if someone ever rapes a member of my family and I get ahold of them before authorities do, I'm going to skin them alive. As far as weither or not Saddam deserves death? He sure as hell does, and if you don't agree, you missed something. Probably a lot of somethings. Weither or not we should be the ones to give him death is another matter entirely, I appreciate the idea of handing him over to those families, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belegriel Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Who would be intimidated by three hots and a cot, cable TV, weight room, getting paid to work, a roof over their heads no bills to pay. **** it's a better life than a lot of people have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Between 1973 and 2005, 122 people in 25 US states were released from death row when new evidence of their innocence emerged. There is no one here who can claim that the Criminal Justice system is infallible. However, there is a fine line between the death penalty and life imprisonment. In both cases, there can be any number of appeals by the defendant, prolonging their term in prison, and also increasing the amount of federal finances spent on their case. This line isn't crossed by the Criminal Justice system, because life imprisonment and death penalty are equally, for lack of a better word, bad. Is it really worse for an innocent man to be executed, than for an innocent man to die in prison? I'll also give an example regarding sex offenders. While these criminals rarely receive the death penalty (if ever), is it really worse for them to die? Once they leave that jail cell, they can't live anyway. If they're not beaten to death in jail, or beaten to death in the streets, they can't get a job, a house, credit, or form lasting relationships, because every person with a computer has access to a complete list of everyone whose ever been found guilty of a sex-related crime. It is with no small amount of regret that I say that our Criminal Justice system, like almost every other governmental system in the world, has its flaws. However, that is not a reason to allow people who have committed reprehensible crimes to stay alive in jails - staying warm, being fed, etc., while we have hundreds of thousands (even millions!) of homeless people on the streets who could benefit from the money wasted on such things as appeals, post-sentencing investigations, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Just some numbers: Capital punishment is currently authorized in 38 states and by the federal government. Since 1977, the average time served before execution is 121 months. Since 1976, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed the death penalty, 6,588 persons have been sentenced to death. About 10 percent of those have actually been executed. Another 35 percent have had their death sentence removed on appeal or have died while in prison. Among the 683 executions carried out since 1977, 518 were by lethal injection, 149 by electrocution, 11 by lethal gas, 3 by hanging (two in Washington State and one in Delaware) and 2 by firing squad (both in Utah). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Fear, I certainly hope you don't eat any meat, then. There's lots of butchers and farmers you need to kill as well. Belegriel, as good as it sounds, the fact of the matter is that there has been no real evidence that has pointed to the death penalty being an actual deterrent; to the contrary, many nations without the death penalty have a lower rate of violent crime than nations with it. Evangelion...uh, well, it's probably worse for people to be executed than die in prison, yes. That's why everyone appeals death penalty cases, rather than opt for life in prison. If they wanted to die rather than spend life in prison, they could kill themselves, themselves. "They'd be worse off alive, so let's kill them," is a very, very flimsy argument, if that. In addition, as you have stated, 122 people on death row have been released (let's not get into the number who may have been improperly executed). Do you think this would happen if there were no money being 'wasted' on things such as post-sentencing investigations? Those are people that actually completed the entire appeals process, and had their execution stayed for some reason or another. How many people do you think who were found guilty in their original trial, later won on appeal? A considerable amount as well. The money is only wasted if you consider the monetary cost to be greater than the moral cost of executing dozens or hundreds of innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear, the Angel's Name Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Thank you for mocking me, but no, I eat meat. There's a difference between killing an animal to feed people and twisting the head off of a kitten. Want a good example of what I am referring to? The fiance of my 'friend' told me that he and his marine buddy took his little sister's kitten outside and threw it up into the air, hitting it with a 2x4 like a baseball. I no longer associate with him, and the other guy? I'd cut off his goods if I were given the chance, without a second thought. Before you question weither or not I was lied to, I already confirmed the story with his brother. It happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I actualy really like an idea that a warden came up with in Arizona I think it is. He turned the prision into a home for abandoned animals' date=' and made all the inmates sleep outside in tents. No air conditioning, no tv, no comforts. He gave the c-rations to eat. When some people got angry and started saying he was being inhumane he merely responded "That is how the troops in Iraq live, are you saying that prisioners should live better than people fighting for the country?"[/quote'] Does every criminal deserve that kind of treatment? I break the law on a daily basis by doing something that hurts no one, yet I could still be sent to prison for a time if I'm caught. Should I be forced to live like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 So if the kitten was eaten afterwards, it would be fine with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Well... Most (or some anyway) prisons are commercial anyway and not funded by the state, right? Apart from the court process, the inmate won't take any of your precious tax dollars. Well.. he will, because the state will pay to put him in a certain prison but corporative money will pay for his food, clothing, shelter. And U.S prison is not all that cozy that you believe it to be, at least not from what I've been told. In fact, I've been told that the prisoners in jail do most of the work to keep the place running - cooking, repairing, etc, etc. Although, this was not on death roll. People can change. People should get second chances. When it is obvious that a person will not change, he should be separated from the rest of the community. Even then, there should be a chance for him to return. If someone did something to your family, and you killed him, his family would kill you, and so on. Because everyone would be right. I feel just as sorry for the homeless as everyone else, but in reality I would, and most other people I know, have to give something up for them to have a better living standard. I'm not prepared or willing to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear, the Angel's Name Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 Enough. You're not interested in this as a discussion, you are only trying to antagonize me. Cattle are killed instantly, chickens, turkey, and pigs are beheaded. Their death is instantaneous, and it is not done for sick and twisted reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I break the law on a daily basis by doing something that hurts no one' date=' yet I could still be sent to prison for a time if I'm caught. Should I be forced to live like that?[/quote'] Oh, my god! I think we have a filesharer! But still... Pirates don't steal - they share! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I'm not particularly interested in antagonizing you. I do find your viewpoint to be somewhat narrow (killing is bad, but eating it afterwards makes it fine? killing slowly is bad, but killing quickly is fine? killing with sadistic intent is bad, but killing as part of a business is good?), and wanted to bring up a perspective I don't believe you are considering, without warping the discussion from the economics of capital punishment to killing cats and cows. And I actually thought Pali was talking about weed. You pothead, you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.