alternative to death penalty?

[jverne]

watch at least one part of this docu (10 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S4HpuBUEAA&feature=PlayList&p=C55AEA61EA3BD7CB&index=0


...done?

ok let's move on. this thread is heavily subjective so approach it with caution.

personally i believe that someone who kills a fellow person in cold blood...perfectly consciously and with malintent, doesn't deserve the same rights as other innocent people.
i don't necessarily agree with the death penalty for them, so i kinda bounce between two options.

1. forced labor...giving something back to society. but this presents numerous security issues and still allows them "too much freedom" to make malicious plans.
2. throw them into solitary with minimal care...like food, space, hygiene,...

i'm kinda inclined for the second option. IMO if you do something illegal and illegitimate you don't deserve any care from society but also you're not allowed to further endanger it.

regular life imprisonment has too much security issues...if you've seen the video you know by now that inmates can run criminal organizations and hurt even innocent outsiders. we aren't required to waste time and money for making someone safe from somebody who should already be under punishment.

until we invent brainwashing technology that works 99%, some people just can't be corrected. or until society gets civilized enough to cancel out heavy crime.


i'm waiting for someone to change my mind...so you're most welcome.

 

[Mr Stabby]

leper colony.

 

[Raziaar]

Note: This post isn't about the Death Penalty.

Prison Gangs are a HUGE influence on the crime in this country, and can be incredibly destructive to society as they are able to run their operations from within the prison, and issuing commands to the outside world easily.

One way to solve the issue of Prison gangs I think is complete, 100% confinement from other prisoners. No social contact between them whatsoever. No form of contact with the outside world except for lawyers. That means no conjugal visits, no family visits, nothing.

This of course would deal with violent criminals. I suppose visits could happen, but it would be done in a way entirely controlled and observed. I'm talking about up in your face observation to monitor everything said.

None of this would work with how our prison systems are constructed today though. And people may object to the morality of doing this. But it would solve the problem of Prison Gangs when they are completely isolated and unable to do what Prison Gangs do best.



I once toyed with the idea for a story of a society like the USA, which implemented a new prison system that was completely automated by robots and technology. Inmates were treated like objects in a warehouse. Moved, shipped about, held for storage, all without human interaction in the process. Horrible things would happen of course, with inmates being lost, unaccounted for as horrible things happened to them, intentionally, by the system in a cold computerized effort to better rehabilitate society and always have room for more inmates to come in.

 

[jverne]

Note: This post isn't about the Death Penalty.

Prison Gangs are a HUGE influence on the crime in this country, and can be incredibly destructive to society as they are able to run their operations from within the prison, and issuing commands to the outside world easily.

One way to solve the issue of Prison gangs I think is complete, 100% confinement from other prisoners. No social contact between them whatsoever. No form of contact with the outside world except for lawyers. That means no conjugal visits, no family visits, nothing.

This of course would deal with violent criminals. I suppose visits could happen, but it would be done in a way entirely controlled and observed. I'm talking about up in your face observation to monitor everything said.

None of this would work with how our prison systems are constructed today though. And people may object to the morality of doing this. But it would solve the problem of Prison Gangs when they are completely isolated and unable to do what Prison Gangs do best.



I once toyed with the idea for a story of a society like the USA, which implemented a new prison system that was completely automated by robots and technology. Inmates were treated like objects in a warehouse. Moved, shipped about, held for storage, all without human interaction in the process. Horrible things would happen of course, with inmates being lost, unaccounted for as horrible things happened to them, intentionally, by the system in a cold computerized effort to better rehabilitate society and always have room for more inmates to come in.

my point exactly.

we give heavy criminals too much freedom.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Like LIVING, or DYING via expensive bullshit. Which reminds me someone once said the Chinese system was more efficient in simple $.10 bullet to head.

 

[Cephius]

I look at it from the perspective that I wouldn't give out any punishment that I couldn't take. Death is one of them.

I have to agree with Raziaar. That sort of approach would at least stem the inmates from affecting the outside world. But it would prove to be expensive.

 

[CptStern]

here's a punishment that wont trample over human rights; life in prison no chance of parole. really why is this such a difficult concept to accept? no, it must be ever more cruel and punishing "forced labour""solitary confinement" for life ..not taking into account that these punishments are not only highly illegal but they're also at risk of putting the government at the same level as the criminals they would do away with. But really the solution is starting you right in the face and is in use in other parts of the world AND is effective: life in prison, no chance of parole for the worst offnders. but death penalty supporters dont want this solution because it's not revenge enough for them ..even though they inadvertedly give criminals a simple virtually painless way out; lethal injection

 

[Eejit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ

That's all I have to say about that.

 

[jverne]

here's a punishment that wont trample over human rights; life in prison no chance of parole. really why is this such a difficult concept to accept? no, it must be ever more cruel and punishing "forced labour""solitary confinement" for life ..not taking into account that these punishments are not only highly illegal but they're also at risk of putting the government at the same level as the criminals they would do away with. But really the solution is starting you right in the face and is in use in other parts of the world AND is effective: life in prison, no chance of parole for the worst offnders. but death penalty supporters dont want this solution because it's not revenge enough for them ..even though they inadvertedly give criminals a simple virtually painless way out; lethal injection

stern, you obviously missed a main point of argument here. what about the detainees influencing the world outside and perpetrating further crime?

i'm not mainly talking about revenge here... why should society support a heavy criminal with little chance of correction to do nothing or even committing even more crime?
the point of solitary confinement or at least heavy restricted communication is not just about punishment but also for preventing gangs and such. the point of minimal care is about not wasting money on something that gives absolutely nothing in return.

watch the video it's really interesting.

 

[CptStern]

stern, you obviously missed a main point of argument here. what about the detainees influencing the world outside and perpetrating further crime?

this makes little sense. inmates on death row are in solitary confinement and have no access to the general population; they're not influencing anybody, and if they are at best it probably doesnt even merit a blip on the radar

On texas Death Row conditions:

Male Death Row inmates are housed at the Polunsky Unit, outside of Livingston, Texas, where they have individual 60 square feet (5.6 m2) cells. The prisoners are segregated from the general prison population and recreate individually.

i'm not mainly talking about revenge here... why should society support a heavy criminal with little chance of correction to do nothing or even committing even more crime?
the point of solitary confinement or at least heavy restricted communication is not just about punishment but also for preventing gangs and such. the point of minimal care is about not wasting money on something that gives absolutely nothing in return.

death row syndrome:

According to some psychiatrists, the results of being confined to death row for an extended period of time, including the effects of knowing one will die and the living conditions, can fuel delusions and suicidal tendencies in an individual and can cause insanity in a form that is dangerous"

As of 2008[update], arguments about the death row phenomenon have never been successful in avoiding the death penalty for any person in the US, but the US Supreme Court has been aware of the theory and has mentioned it in its decisions. When a serial killer named Michael Bruce Ross agreed to be executed, this had also led to a legal dispute over whether he could ever legally agree to such a thing, as the death row phenomenon might have contributed to his decision

solitary confinement has similiar effects:

Opponents of solitary confinement claim that it is a form of cruel and unusual punishment[4] because the lack of human contact (and the sensory deprivation that often go with solitary confinement) can have a severe negative impact on a prisoner's mental state[1] that may lead to certain mental illnesses such as depression or an existential crisis.

solitary confinement as a punishment doled out by the courts probably wouldnt stand legally for long

watch the video it's really interesting.

cant, at work

 

[jverne]

this makes little sense. inmates on death row are in solitary confinement and have no access to the general population; they're not influencing anybody, and if they are at best it probably doesnt even merit a blip on the radar

watch the video and you'll see. the A.B. has become a criminal organization, not just a crappy prison gang.

death row syndrome:



solitary confinement has similiar effects:



solitary confinement as a punishment doled out by the courts probably wouldnt stand legally for long

objectionably speaking you have no argument.

subjectively...well, they killed in cold blood and with evil intent why should we care for them?

cant, at work

do it later

 

[CptStern]

watch the video and you'll see. the A.B. has become a criminal organization, not just a crappy prison gang.

I cant watch the video and wont for another 10 hours or so. please explain, what is A.B?

objectionably speaking you have no argument.

what does this mean? solitary confinement is NOT a sentence, it is punishment given in prison. no court could impose a sentence of soliutary confinement for life; it would be challenged on constitutional grounds and would most likely be struck down; unusual punishment etc. not feasible. I dont see how you can say I have no argument when your argument is completely speculative and doesnt even take into consideration existing laws

subjectively...well, they killed in cold blood and with evil intent why should we care for them?

what does this have to do with whether or not it crosses into illegality? public opinion is worth squat when it comes to determining the legality over a constitutiional issues. they have absolutely no say

do it later

like I said, another 10 hours or so, but for the sake of this debate if you bring the video into your reply, please provide context

 

[Raziaar]

I cant watch the video and wont for another 10 hours or so. please explain, what is A.B?

A.B is the Aryan Brotherhood.

Aryan Brotherhood of course is a white power gang that has incredibly influence on the outside world through it's criminal activities within the prison.

Same with gangs like the Mexican Mafia... which is probably the most powerful prison gang in history, and it exerts power and runs its operation completely from the prison system with ease.

Prison Gangs have more power than gangs that operate from outside of prison. Prison Gangs CONTROL gangs that operate outside of prison.

 

[CptStern]

A.B is the Aryan Brotherhood.

Aryan Brotherhood of course is a white power gang that has incredibly influence on the outside world through it's criminal activities within the prison.

ok but I dont understand how that applies to people on death row. the whole idea behind the post is that we should execute people because they may just run their criminal organisations from the inside. however those charged with capital offenses are sequestered away from the general prison population. I dont see what he's getting at. capital punishment for all crimes? how else would they "run" their organisations if those who have committed a capital offense are locked away from the general population?

 

[Raziaar]

ok but I dont understand how that applies to people on death row. the whole idea behind the post is that we should execute people because they may just run their criminal organisations from the inside. however those charged with capital offenses are sequestered away from the general prison population. I dont see what he's getting at. capital punishment for all crimes? how else would they "run" their organisations if those who have committed a capital offense are locked away from the general population?

I don't know what post you're talking about that concerns execution.

My solution was that we completely sever the ability for them to operate their criminal empire, by disrupting every avenue they use to do it.

Which post are you talking about that concerns execution?

 

[CptStern]

I don't know what post you're talking about that concerns execution.


Which post are you talking about that concerns execution?

personally i believe that someone who kills a fellow person in cold blood...perfectly consciously and with malintent, doesn't deserve the same rights as other innocent people.

i don't necessarily agree with the death penalty for them, so i kinda bounce between two options.

1. forced labor...giving something back to society. but this presents numerous security issues and still allows them "too much freedom" to make malicious plans.
2. throw them into solitary with minimal care...like food, space, hygiene,...

he's saying the alternative to the death penalty should be forced labour and solitary confinement. it's in the title of this thread:

"alternative to death penalty" ..so if they commited a crime that was worthy of captial punishment they wouldnt be in the general prison population. the way jverne describes it these people WOULD be in general population because there's no death row. his idea compounds the problem exponentionally

 

[Raziaar]

Right... but you said this... which confused me.

ok but I dont understand how that applies to people on death row. the whole idea behind the post is that we should execute people because they may just run their criminal organisations from the inside. however those charged with capital offenses are sequestered away from the general prison population. I dont see what he's getting at. capital punishment for all crimes? how else would they "run" their organisations if those who have committed a capital offense are locked away from the general population?

Because it had nothing to do with death row and execution.

Me personally, I think forced labor is out of the question. Solitary confinement though, I have no issue with that. I do not believe it's torture. There's no right prisoners are given that says they are entitled to have fellow criminal companionship.

They only use it to further their criminal agendas anyway. Keep them in absolute solitary confinement without any way to communicate with the outside world. And if there was a way to communicate, all contact is to be monitored.

Of course, criminal lawyers which hopefully are more fiction than fact, would still be able to operate since they're entitled to privacy with their clients.

 

[PvtRyan]

I'd worry about preventing the things that get people locked up, rather than getting petty, useless revenge, which is ultimately an emotional response even though justice should be rational.

 

[CptStern]

Right... but you said this... which confused me.


Because it had nothing to do with death row and execution.

you lost me. the thread is about the alternative to the death penalty

Me personally, I think forced labor is out of the question. Solitary confinement though, I have no issue with that. I do not believe it's torture. There's no right prisoners are given that says they are entitled to have fellow criminal companionship.

opinions are meaningless when determining the context of the law. solitary confinement wouldnt stand a day in court under the "cruel and unusual punisment" guarenteed right given by the constitution. since solitary confinement for extended periods can lead to psychological ill effects and even suicide it could be successfully argued that giving "solitary confinement" for the duration of their time in jail could be considered as "cruel and unusual"

look the problem is that too many people look at this issue through emotional lenses. I'm not

 

[repiV]

I don't see how life in prison without the possibility of parole is any more "humane" than the death penalty. You're denying them life of any meaning or value for eternity anyway, and at great expense to the taxpayer, so you might as well just kill them and get it over with.

Solitary confinement for any period of time would make anyone go quite literally insane. Social contact is a basic human need. Not a good idea.

 

[CptStern]

I don't see how life in prison without the possibility of parole is any more "humane" than the death penalty. You're denying them life of any meaning or value for eternity anyway, and at great expense to the taxpayer, so you might as well just kill them and get it over with.

first of all executing/housing people in death row is more expensive than regular prison sentence and second of all your analogy doesnt pan out because you could use that slippery slope logic to prove ANY punishment is cruel and unusual. life sentences are given all the time

Solitary confinement for any period of time would make anyone go quite literally insane. Social contact is a basic human need. Not a good idea.

this is my point. it would never fly legally, not as a sentence

 

[Eejit]

I don't see how life in prison without the possibility of parole is any more "humane" than the death penalty. You're denying them life of any meaning or value for eternity anyway, and at great expense to the taxpayer, so you might as well just kill them and get it over with.

If they are later exonerated they can be released from prison. They can't be resurrected from the dead.

 

[jverne]

what does this mean? solitary confinement is NOT a sentence, it is punishment given in prison. no court could impose a sentence of soliutary confinement for life; it would be challenged on constitutional grounds and would most likely be struck down; unusual punishment etc. not feasible. I dont see how you can say I have no argument when your argument is completely speculative and doesnt even take into consideration existing laws

what does this have to do with whether or not it crosses into illegality? public opinion is worth squat when it comes to determining the legality over a constitutiional issues. they have absolutely no say

i'm not going into legal issues about sentencing prisoners...i'm talking about how jails could be run or specifically how prisoners should be handled.
i do realize that the tile is a bit misleading. maybe it should be more like, how to deal with prisoners or something along these lines.

If they are later exonerated they can be released from prison. They can't be resurrected from the dead.

that what i just wanted to add. and no...i said i don't agree with sentencing someone to death (as in killing someone).

 

[Raziaar]

opinions are meaningless when determining the context of the law. solitary confinement wouldnt stand a day in court under the "cruel and unusual punisment" guarenteed right given by the constitution. since solitary confinement for extended periods can lead to psychological ill effects and even suicide it could be successfully argued that giving "solitary confinement" for the duration of their time in jail could be considered as "cruel and unusual"

look the problem is that too many people look at this issue through emotional lenses. I'm not

Some of our prisons already have 23 hour lockdown with full isolation preventing prisoners from interacting with each other on a level that can allow them to operate criminally.

The one hour they do get free is outside in cages. They do have some contact with each other there, but it's still so minimal compared to how most prisons operate.

If all high security prisons operated that way, I'm sure prison related criminal influence would go down drastically.

 

[Sheepo]

I don't see how life in prison without the possibility of parole is any more "humane" than the death penalty. You're denying them life of any meaning or value for eternity anyway, and at great expense to the taxpayer, so you might as well just kill them and get it over with.

These:

first of all executing/housing people in death row is more expensive than regular prison sentence and second of all your analogy doesnt pan out because you could use that slippery slope logic to prove ANY punishment is cruel and unusual. life sentences are given all the time

If they are later exonerated they can be released from prison. They can't be resurrected from the dead.

Why did I even bother posting?

 

[CptStern]

i'm not going into legal issues about sentencing prisoners...i'm talking about how jails could be run or specifically how prisoners should be handled.
i do realize that the tile is a bit misleading. maybe it should be more like, how to deal with prisoners or something along these lines.

ok fair enough

Some of our prisons already have 23 hour lockdown with full isolation preventing prisoners from interacting with each other on a level that can allow them to operate criminally.

The one hour they do get free is outside in cages. They do have some contact with each other there, but it's still so minimal compared to how most prisons operate.

If all high security prisons operated that way, I'm sure prison related criminal influence would go down drastically.

there's some evidence these prisons breed prisoners with psychological problems. Some would say that prison breeds better criminals. supermax prisons breed better criminals with psycholgical problems ..super criminals if you will

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0608/3.htm

 

[Raziaar]

ok fair enough




there's some evidence these prisons breed prisoners with psychological problems. Some would say that prison breeds better criminals. supermax prisons breed better criminals with psycholgical problems ..super criminals if you will

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0608/3.htm

I would argue that prisons that allow inmates to commingle and practice criminal activities in prisons(which happens all the time) makes better criminals than inmates in isolation.

But I have nothing to back it up. It's just logic and common sense for me.

 

[CptStern]

yes but isolated criminals make better psychotic criminals. I'd rather a criminal with lock picking skillz then bashing-your-head-open-with-a-lead-pipe-and-shitting-down-your-neck skillz .....but that's just me :E

 

[repiV]

first of all executing/housing people in death row is more expensive than regular prison sentence and second of all your analogy doesnt pan out because you could use that slippery slope logic to prove ANY punishment is cruel and unusual. life sentences are given all the time

I don't see how the death penalty can be more expensive than a lifetime in prison. I want to see how that figure is arrived at. It's like the oft-cited statistic that a fatal road accident costs £1.4 million, it's a load of shit really because the vast majority of that figure involves speculative projections such as loss of earnings and tax revenues as a result of the person not living out the rest of their life, rather than any actual costs incurred by the death. Statistics can be manipulated to tell any story.

Life sentences are given all the time, but it doesn't actually mean life, it's just a long sentence. There is light at the end of the tunnel. What on earth is the point in locking someone up for life without any possibility of them ever coming out again?

It's just as permanent a "solution" as the death penalty, and every bit as damning for the recipient. I think you're kidding yourself if you believe it's any more humane (is being humane a necessary aspect of punishment anyway?). It's just more palatable as it doesn't have the crushing finality of death.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the death penalty anyway. I don't think the state should ever have the right to sanction execution as a punishment, and the thought that something so horrible and emotive as killing is meted out in such a cold and calculating way is horrifying and unpalatable to me. Especially in countries like Singapore.

It doesn't mean that some criminals don't deserve to die, the system should just never have the power to decide that.

I don't know what the answer to justice is, and I think we'll be trying to answer that question for eternity. Either way, life without parole may as well be the death penalty.

this is my point. it would never fly legally, not as a sentence

I'm not disagreeing with you. I would consider solitary confinement as a sentence to be nothing more than a form of abuse. It's certainly not very constructive.

If they are later exonerated they can be released from prison. They can't be resurrected from the dead.

This is quite true. However, that's a separate issue from the moral aspect of the death penalty which is the more common argument against it.

 

[Raziaar]

yes but isolated criminals make better psychotic criminals. I'd rather a criminal with lock picking skillz then bashing-your-head-open-with-a-lead-pipe-and-shitting-down-your-neck skillz .....but that's just me :E

You'll get more of those violently criminal types from prisoners who mingle in the prison population. Gangs issue acts of violence within the prisons... from beatings to rapings to murders. And oftentimes people who aren't violent criminals are recruited into these prison gangs and learn to do these things.

Maybe it's just me because of all the prison documentaries and specials I watch on TV that to me the prison population is a breeding ground for more advanced, more ruthless criminals.

You often have non violent criminals who go in there and are forced to join prison gangs or lose their life... race based prison gangs... and they come out violent, racist criminals indoctrinated in gang ideology. When they came in just petty criminals sentenced to hard time.

 

[Eejit]

This is quite true. However, that's a separate issue from the moral aspect of the death penalty which is the more common argument against it.

I consider it part of the moral argument. If you're completely unable to reverse or end a punishment then it's morally wrong due to the fallibility of justice systems.

 

[repiV]

I consider it part of the moral argument. If you're completely unable to reverse or end a punishment then it's morally wrong due to the fallibility of justice systems.

Good point. It's still a separate issue to that of the ethical considerations of sentencing a guilty man to die.

 

[Raziaar]

I don't see how the death penalty can be more expensive than a lifetime in prison. I want to see how that figure is arrived at. It's like the oft-cited statistic that a fatal road accident costs £1.4 million, it's a load of shit really because the vast majority of that figure involves speculative projections such as loss of earnings and tax revenues as a result of the person not living out the rest of their life, rather than any actual costs incurred by the death. Statistics can be manipulated to tell any story.

It's that way because it's a bloated bureaucratic process. I suppose that's a good thing in a way, because it's a man's life we're talking about here. But still, way too much money is wasted on it.


Oh and I also wanted to add... if there's such a big problem with isolation turning inmates into psychopaths... there could be provisions in place to allow these people some contact with non criminally oriented individuals. Like prison therapists or something. If they need somebody to talk to in order to keep sane.

 

[repiV]

It's that way because it's a bloated bureaucratic process. I suppose that's a good thing in a way, because it's a man's life we're talking about here. But still, way too much money is wasted on it.

So when this cost is calculated...who bears that cost?

Obviously the taxpayer shoulders the burden for the cost of incarceration. Who pays the legal profession for the costs incurred in a death penalty case?

If many of these incidental costs incurred by capital punishment are not paid for by the state, then it's not a valid comparison. My suspicion being that that is indeed the case.

 

[Eejit]

I do know that a lot of death row inmates are there for decades before execution, which is a big part of the cost.
I don't know if conditions on death row are better or worse than the prison average though.

 

[CptStern]

I don't see how the death penalty can be more expensive than a lifetime in prison.

I dont know either, but it is so ....

A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 forecasted that the lifetime expenses of capitally-prosecuted cases since 1978 will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million. That translates into at least $37.2 million for each of the stateâ??s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty. The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment.

I want to see how that figure is arrived at. It's like the oft-cited statistic that a fatal road accident costs £1.4 million, it's a load of shit really because the vast majority of that figure involves speculative projections such as loss of earnings and tax revenues as a result of the person not living out the rest of their life, rather than any actual costs incurred by the death. Statistics can be manipulated to tell any story.

here ya go, happy hunting

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13279051

Life sentences are given all the time, but it doesn't actually mean life, it's just a long sentence.

depending on jurisdiction, life can mean 25 years (canada, it varies up to 50 yrs) before chance of parole. if successful then yes it's less than a "life" sentence.. no chance of parole pretty much guarentees life in prison

There is light at the end of the tunnel. What on earth is the point in locking someone up for life without any possibility of them ever coming out again?

"In almost all jurisdictions without capital punishment, life imprisonment (especially without the possibility of parole) constitutes the most severe form of criminal punishment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment

It's just as permanent a "solution" as the death penalty, and every bit as damning for the recipient.

it's much more so. they get to spend their entire lives behind bars under maximum security which is far worse than a quick lethal injection release

I think you're kidding yourself if you believe it's any more humane (is being humane a necessary aspect of punishment anyway?). It's just more palatable as it doesn't have the crushing finality of death.

I'm not kidding myself of anything., but it is more humane. despite your protestations.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the death penalty anyway. I don't think the state should ever have the right to sanction execution as a punishment, and the thought that something so horrible and emotive as killing is meted out in such a cold and calculating way is horrifying and unpalatable to me. Especially in countries like Singapore.

because it's inhumane. uncivilised, barbaric

It doesn't mean that some criminals don't deserve to die

by what means do we measure this? is a cop killer more deserving of death than say Jeffery Dahmer? he got his in prison

the system should just never have the power to decide that.

I don't know what the answer to justice is, and I think we'll be trying to answer that question for eternity. Either way, life without parole may as well be the death penalty.

except it's no quick release but a life contemplating what they did to get there. if your loved one was killed by some maniac, would you want them dead or would you rather they suffer for years just as you're suffering from the loss? why should they get a quick release? the surviving victems dont get that luxury unless it's by their hands and on top of that it's freakin illegal!!!

I'm not disagreeing with you. I would consider solitary confinement as a sentence to be nothing more than a form of abuse. It's certainly not very constructive.

it's not. human rights apply to all humans, not just those that conform. there is no room for exceptions

 

[repiV]

Some examples of capital punishment are just mind-boggling. In Singapore the death penalty is mandatory for anyone caught in possession of 500g of cannabis, or 30g of morphine. I mean WTF. It's just beyond sick.

I don't care how clean and tidy and prosperous it is, what a shithole of a country.

 

[repiV]

I dont know either, but it is so ....

here ya go, happy hunting

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13279051

Interesting...thanks.

depending on jurisdiction, life can mean 25 years (canada, it varies up to 50 yrs) before chance of parole. if successful then yes it's less than a "life" sentence.. no chance of parole pretty much guarentees life in prison

There are only three dozen or so people in the UK serving life without parole. Usually you can expect to be out in 15 or 20 years.

it's much more so. they get to spend their entire lives behind bars under maximum security which is far worse than a quick lethal injection release

I'm not kidding myself of anything., but it is more humane. despite your protestations.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

How can it be both much more of a punishment and more humane at the same time? That doesn't make sense. I think you're confusing your own ability to deal with the consequences of those punishments emotionally with what is humane. If it's preferable for them to suffer the death penalty - the better option for them - then how can it be more humane to impose a worse punishment?

because it's inhumane. uncivilised, barbaric

We pretend to be civilised. Things like the death penalty demonstrate otherwise. All it would take for the thin veneer of civilisation to collapse is nobody getting paid for a month.

by what means do we measure this? is a cop killer more deserving of death than say Jeffery Dahmer? he got his in prison

Which is one very good reason why the system should never be able to decide such things. If he gets a knife in the back though, then it's no great loss. A killing borne of passion can be easier to accept, and sometimes understandable. But handed down as a sentence it's systematically disgusting.

except it's no quick release but a life contemplating what they did to get there. if your loved one was killed by some maniac, would you want them dead or would you rather they suffer for years just as you're suffering from the loss? why should they get a quick release? the surviving victems dont get that luxury unless it's by their hands and on top of that it's freakin illegal!!!

It's a very emotive thought. I would probably want to kill them myself.

it's not. human rights apply to all humans, not just those that conform. there is no room for exceptions

I'm not sure to what extent I agree with that statement. I don't think a car thief has any innate right to live if shooting them could stop the owner being deprived of their car which would otherwise never be recovered. It would certainly be unsympathetic to kill the car thief and not something I would do myself, but he chose to steal the car and why should the owner of it suffer unnecessarily because of that? Tough luck - play with fire, you risk getting burned.

 

[CyberPitz]

I'm all for the death penalty. They felt the need to kill somebody, they shouldn't get any rights to live. Plus, it will be cheaper for us! Less money to feed them!

 

[CptStern]

I'm all for the death penalty. They felt the need to kill somebody, they shouldn't get any rights to live. Plus, it will be cheaper for us! Less money to feed them!

dude you should read the thread. it's not cheaper