Death Penalty, when?

[Max35]

Well, when that amount of money can drastically help someone else's life, perhaps someone who is handicapped and helpless, then I don't see that as barbaric.

As for emotional satisfaction, that has never been the basis of my thoughts or actions. Executing the murderer would simply divert the money flow to a (hopefully) better cause.

Why should a vile murderer live a life of ease, able to pursue an education at the expense of US tax dollars, while a homeless handicap languishes in the gutter? That doesn't seem very logical.

 

[kirovman]

Although the tax dollars in the US increasingly seem to be diverted away from social programmes, and more towards foreign policy objectives.

 

[delusional]

can a women be executed because i heard they cant

 

[Max35]

Although the tax dollars in the US increasingly seem to be diverted away from social programmes, and more towards foreign policy objectives.

Yes, I've known that for awhile. That's why i said the money would *hopefully* go to a better use.

I don't know, I sort of see it as barbaric and very unfair to force american citizens to support a murderer's lifestyle. It costs much, much less money to execute them (trials have to happen either way) than to support them doing nothing for several years, even decades. That's how I see it, if anyone can show me concrete evidence otherwise, I'd be willing to listen.

 

[DeusExMachina]

can a women be executed because i heard they cant

Women have been executed, yes.

 

[Max35]

can a women be executed because i heard they cant

I don't see why women should recieve more mercy than men, evil is evil regardless of the shell. But yes, as the above poster said, women have been executed.

HOWEVER, on average, women pedophiles recieve much more lenient sentences than men. That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[PvtRyan]

Yes, I've known that for awhile. That's why i said the money would *hopefully* go to a better use.

I don't know, I sort of see it as barbaric and very unfair to force american citizens to support a murderer's lifestyle. It costs much, much less money to execute them (trials have to happen either way) than to support them doing nothing for several years, even decades. That's how I see it, if anyone can show me concrete evidence otherwise, I'd be willing to listen.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial facts

And no matter how you'll twist it, you're quantifying someone's life to a sum of money. That's barbaric. Life can't be bought.

 

[el Chi]

I don't mean structually, I mean philosphically.
I view criminals as victims of societys failures (most of them anyway). Tony Blair should not be shot, he should be made to see how wrong he was, a la 1984.

Prison is supposed to be a place of punishment AND rehabilitation. It's true that more needs to be done to improve the latter, but that means the system needs a shake-up not that it needs to be done away with.

you'd have to find more cost-effective ways of doing it.

Hold a plastic bag over their heads and thern get midgets to pummel them with sticks?
I would only support death penalty if this were the case.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Pvt, you're forgetting about the death penalty's role as a deterant.

The abstract deterant factor of handguns is, all in all, pretty much the only quantifiably good thing they do against crime. I suspect it's the same with the penalty.

Plus, a mob boss in jail could just establish connections to the outside. An insane man could shank a fellow inmate.

At some point, the choice rests between an absurdly total isolation or death.

The system obviously has massive flaws currently, but abandonning it completely is a bit too far.

 

[el Chi]

I was under the impression that it has been repeatedly shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

 

[repiV]

If you have the death penalty, you also have the certainty that innocent people are going to be executed. Regardless of any other factors, I don't see how that is even remotely acceptable.
Also, of course you can put a price on a human life. Your life is worth your usefulness to society. You can't just sink endless resources into preserving human life. It's hardly practical.
Rich people live longer. There you go - a price on human life.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I was under the impression that it has been repeatedly shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Well fuck that shit then.

 

[Max35]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial facts

And no matter how you'll twist it, you're quantifying someone's life to a sum of money. That's barbaric. Life can't be bought.

Okay, you're right about death penalty cases being more costly than life imprisonment. You've cited a valid source, to that I cannot refute. However, we are still paying tax dollars to support this massive prison population, at the detriment of the poor and helpless.

You can say it's barbaric or whatever, but I would rather spend this money on enhancing a human life. Unfortunately, money is the channel through which good deeds are sometimes passed through. You cannot, and never will change that aspect of society.

There seems to be no way around it, but life imprisonment is a waste of money. How we pamper the murderers and rapists and give them free education at the expense of others, THAT is barbaric.

 

[PvtRyan]

Pvt, you're forgetting about the death penalty's role as a deterant.

The abstract deterant factor of handguns is, all in all, pretty much the only quantifiably good thing they do against crime. I suspect it's the same with the penalty.

Plus, a mob boss in jail could just establish connections to the outside. An insane man could shank a fellow inmate.

At some point, the choice rests between an absurdly total isolation or death.

The system obviously has massive flaws currently, but abandonning it completely is a bit too far.

Wouldn't have expected this stance on death penalty from you Mecha

But death penalty isn't a deterant.

What makes someone commit a murder?

It's either:
1) Greed.
2) Emotion.
3) Mental disorder.

When would death penalty be a deterant?

1) When someone kills out of greed, he does this very consciously. You're not detered because you expect not to be caught.
2) If you kill out of emotion, you're obviously not being rational. You won't think about the consequences.
3) Seems obvious, a mentally sick person won't think about the consequences and is usually 'compelled' to carry out his sick ideas.

And killing someone because he might become a problem in the prison is absurd. You can't take someone's life because your system is flawed. Improve the system. But it isn't even remotely a problem in countries without the death sentence, perhaps your prisons are just shitty.

Not to mention people who are sentenced to death still serve many years in prison usually, enough time to get stabby stabby on someone.

Point remains, there isn't a rational reason to kill a prisoner. It's purely emotional. Judicial systems shouldn't be based on emotion, bad idea.

Penn and Teller did a very good episode of Bullshit on this, but it's no longer on Google Video. Shame, seems to be a trend, video sites removing the good stuff.

 

[CptStern]

absolutely never ...better to rot in jail

 

[bvasgm]

I've got two big problems with the death penalty. Not that I have any moral problems with killing murders and rapists, it's just that:

1) Sooner or later, an innocent person's going to be killed.

2) There are better ways to punish someone. For example, solitary confinement, for life, with no chance of parole.

 

[Max35]

the high cost of incarceration

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006321.html


This article talks about the increasing cost of incarceration, and the petty, nonsensical reasons why such a sizable portion of the prison population exists in California, and other areas to a lesser extent.

"This would be particularly helpful in California, the state with the largest number of inmates and where almost two-thirds are in prison for parole violations."

Now THAT is an indisputable, nonsensical, waste of our tax dollars. This obviously has nothing to do with the death penalty, just another poorly-executed facet of law administration.

 

[15357]

I'd like to see the complete abolishment of prisons.

Thats.... actually not a very bad idea.


Corporate-run labor facilities! Give the criminals a chance to pay back society for their crimes, by helping the economy grow!

 

[CptStern]

corporate run = for profit ..there's not a single prison (at least in canada) that doesnt run a deficit. oh and you're also advocating indentured slavery

 

[DeusExMachina]

Turning prisoners into labor workers probably wouldn't be a bad idea. A bit authoritan, but not a bad idea.

 

[15357]

corporate run = for profit ..there's not a single prison (at least in canada) that doesnt run a deficit. oh and you're also advocating indentured slavery

It'd be better than killing or having them do nothing except cost food and money, wouldn't it? Think about it, they could be used as cheap construction workers or manual laborors.

They're criminals! They hurt society, and they have to pay it back for their crimes. It is only just.

 

[CptStern]

corporations care about profit margins ..not rehabilitation/incarciration, nor should criminal justice be turned over to a company with private interests

It'd be better than killing

all criminals?

or having them do nothing except cost food and money, wouldn't it?

they break the state's laws, it is up to the state to punish/rehabilitate them for their crimes ..the burden is on the state

Think about it, they could be used as cheap construction workers or manual laborors.

indentured slavery

They're criminals! They hurt society, and they have to pay it back for their crimes. It is only just.

according to whom? you? who stands to profit from their crimes? surely not the family of the victem ..are you saying someone should profit from rape/murder/assualt/theft/etc?

 

[15357]

Ok, then. Public labor facilities! Make them build roads and infrastructure as well as public works!

 

[CptStern]

cheap labour = indentured slavery

look I cant give you an easy solution because there is none ..however I can rightfully say that corporate run prisons are not the answer ..especially if the goal is rehabilitation

 

[smwScott]

I believe we already use prisoners to build roads, pick up trash, etc. And it is a good idea. They don't have rights, **** them. They made a conscious decision to give up their rights, they no longer deserve fair treatment.

As far as the death penalty, there is only one reason I'm against it. It's almost certain that we have executed innocent people in the past, and will continue to do so. That's just unacceptable. When it comes to executing murderers I don't really care, there are far bigger injustices to worry about first ... that's way down the list. Once again, my basic rationale is "**** em."

 

[<RJMC>]

torture?

 

[0mar]

Are you kidding me? No sane person should be against the death penalty. It's written into the codex of every major religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). It's the ultimate punishment. It deserves to be used in crimes that go against the very fabric of society --> killing police officers, witnesses, serial killers and murder for gain/hire. I don't care if its a deterant or more expensive. When you kill a police officer or engage in contract killing, you undermine the very fabric of society. For that transgression, only death is apporiate.

If anything, the death penalty should be kicked up a notch. This 10 years on death row is ridiculous.

Abolishing the death penalty, on any grounds emotional or finanical, is giving into criminal rights. Someone that butchers a family and stuffs them down a drain shouldn't have rights, it's as simple as that.

As for the prison debate, prison wouldn't be out of control if every nickel and dime user and dealer of drugs weren't arrested in this disaster called the War on Drugs. Legalizing drugs will instantly free up billions of dollars for better prison management, care, health and education. It'll do far more good than the War on Drugs does right now.

 

[venturon]

I will never support the killing of a human being.

 

[hasan]

Give me ONE rational reason to kill a man who is no longer a threat to anyone.

OK, here's one: Justice.

I know you're gonna say that's not a rational reason, but I will tell you that it indeed is a rational reason. I will ask you to define what makes an argument "rational", but it will boil down to an argument that makes sense to you, or something that you can agree with.

Here's another one: Why should he stay alive? You might say "because every human has the right to live". I will say "a human who kills innocent people no longer has that right". You might then say "Why is it so?" and I will say "Why is it not so? Why is it that a killer should be given the right to live?", and we will argue forever.

Clearly, when there is no guiding principles, you'll just go with whichever argument that suits you.

 

[venturon]

OK, here's one: Hunger.

I know you're gonna say that's not a rational reason, but I will tell you that it indeed is a rational reason. I will ask you to define what makes an argument "rational", but it will boil down to an argument that makes sense to you, or something that you can agree with.

Here's another one: Why should he stay alive? You might say "because every human has the right to live". I will say "a human who kills innocent people no longer has that right, especially when I am dying for some flame-grilled human". You might then say "Why is it so?" and I will say "Why is it not so? Why is it that a killer should be given the right to live when I'm freakin' starving?", and we will argue forever.

Clearly, when there is no guiding principles, you'll just go with whichever argument that suits you.

 

[Crazy Horse]

There should be no prisons.

Instead, convicts should either:

A) have to pay restitution to the victim or the victim's family or countrymen
B) become outlawed and be forced to leave the land or die at the hands of vengeful citizens

 

[DaMaN]

Though I can see obvious cases where the death penalty is a near-necessity, I would personally argue against the death penalty, primarially on the grounds that death is irreversable, wheras lifelong imprisonment (while it can't be completely reversed) can still allows the person some life if it is determined that the person was innocent. I mean, would you like it if you were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death if you were innocent?

One innocent man convicted and killed by the system is too many, in my opinion.

 

[Absinthe]

Are you kidding me? No sane person should be against the death penalty. It's written into the codex of every major religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

Stopped reading. Discarded opinion.

I voted that sometimes death is necessary. Well, actually that's misleading. The death penalty is never necessary, but I can say I have no qualms with the execution of those who have committed serious crimes without a single shadow of doubt. But when there's room for error? When you get into more fluffy territory where you're not entirely concrete? Definitely not. The execution of innocents is entirely unacceptable. And I believe a strong emphasis on rehabilitation should always take precedence.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I believe in the execution of people who screw up Gmod servers.

 

[sinkoman]

Only time I could think that killing somebody would be an adequate punishment, is if whilst in jail, they continually attacked other inmates (habitually).

There, it becomes an issue of safety not just for the public, but for the other inmates, and for the security personelle.

 

[Tyguy]

I think we should take all prisoners on death row and put them on an island. Then we make them fight to the death with the promise of the winner getting some food or something. We can televise it from a helicopter and put it on paperview.

Funny thing is.....id pay for that in a second.

 

[ríomhaire]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial facts

And no matter how you'll twist it, you're quantifying someone's life to a sum of money. That's barbaric. Life can't be bought.

Of course you can think of someones life in terms of money. And it's not barbaric and it happens all the time.
"Can we afford a baby?"
And there's assasinations and such. Barbarians never would have considered such things, they would kill you if you where in their way and had a child for the family line, they wouldn't have thought about money.

Those in favour of the death penalty:
Give me ONE rational reason to kill a man who is no longer a threat to anyone.

There is none, but a phycopath is still a danger to everyone he comes into contact with. From the rapist down the corridor to the guard who's just doing his job to the little boy who's on a school trip to the prison, I went on one a few months ago and yes, I did come into contact with in-mates.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'm completely against death penalty.

It's been said by one fo the philospohers of the French Revolution: don't maim or kill, if there is a less cruel punishment available.

Tyguy's post is only partly supported by me. Put them on an island, yes. But the island would be completely absent of everything human made, they would be given basic tools and fodd rations for a week and let loose on the island. Whatever they are going to do is up to them. I fthey construct a community - all the better for them. If they kill each other - well, better for us. The criteria would be based on the judge's opinion. If he finds the prisoner guilty and sentence him for 25 years, life or the death penalty, he gets shipped off to the island. Any less, and he's put into heavy works within limits of the country.

The whole system would have to be overseen by a nuclear powered aircraft carrier with VTOL aircraft capable of quickly dispatching any escapees, much like "Escape from New York", and at least two independently working satellites.

Besides, I believed we have actually progressed beyond the primitive "Eye for an eye" mentality and Hammurabi's codex.

 

[hasan]

OK, here's one: Hunger.

Well, you obviously have no principles.

Besides, I believed we have actually progressed beyond the primitive "Eye for an eye" mentality and Hammurabi's codex.

OH! of course .. that's why if you cross the red light, you have to pay %25 of your month's income!

 

[kirovman]

Besides, I believed we have actually progressed beyond the primitive "Eye for an eye" mentality and Hammurabi's codex.

OH! of course .. that's why if you cross the red light, you have to pay %25 of your month's income!

?