Death Row inmate requests Firing Squad

Who else stopped paying attention to the actual topic and started reading the derail about LSD?
 
Are there any actual statistics on what it costs to keep an inmate alive for x years vs. the death penalty?
 
Escaep said:
Are there any actual statistics on what it costs to keep an inmate alive for x years vs. the death penalty?
Click to expand...
Does it really matter?

Should a person be murdered by the state simply because it's cost effective? By that logic, we might as well start executing homeless people. (An exaggeration, yes, but the ultimate consequence of putting a price tag on a person's life.)
 
The Monkey said:
Does it really matter?

Should a person be murdered by the state simply because it's cost effective? By that logic, we might as well start executing homeless people. (An exaggeration, yes, but the ultimate consequence of putting a price tag on a person's life.)
Click to expand...

Some people in this thread say its cheaper to execute, while others say its cheaper to keep them alive. So for the sake of discussion, yes it does really matter.
 
I believe (going from memory here) that it's cheaper to keep them alive as long as it's <40 years. After (generally) the 40 year mark, then killing them is cheaper.

This is because of the free, unlimited appeals a death row inmate gets.
 
Corp. Sheepo said:
a) We're arguing the death penalty, not the innocence or guilt of the person this thread is about. Innocent people are put to death under capital punishment. Fact.

b) As Solaris said, the cost for appeals and time in court for some one who recieves the death penalty is monumental. This is a measure against point A, like a constant 'double check' before you really pull the plug on this guy. No justice system is perfect though, no matter how many times you go through it. To make it more accurate would cost more, to make it cheaper would result in more mistakes.
This is hilarious. Here I'll make a list of the problems we have here:
a) Point A has already been covered, though to be fair, I hadn't adequately explained it until this post.

b) Points B, C, and D could fall under a single point, "Keeping the criminal alive is a risk".

c) All of those risks are there for any criminal, yet for the hypothetical criminal we're considering, it's a better plan to just kill him than put up with them.

d) This 'criminal' we're talking about, is a person. We can't characterize him as a pro vs con list for keeping him alive. He could've done what he did for many reasons, mental or psychological illness, some sort of episode, emotional distress. We can't just pretend these people are inhuman monsters and do away with them. It's our duty as civilized people to try and help them.
Click to expand...

There is a constant "double check" before the sentence is finalized, that part is true. However, that does not suggest higher cost for killing him. The cost to the court COULD potentially cost a lot, but the same could be said for keeping him alive. It's a hypothetical situation all the way, not only for my points but for yours as well.

Yes, you may sum up my points as "keeping a murderer alive is a risk", but you should also know that if any of the risks I stated above actually occurs, the cost will far outweigh any appeals and whatnots (including more deaths and more grief). Again, a hypothetical situation.

And how could we forget that this is the MURDERER'S decision, not the court's? If a criminal wishes to be put to death, but you keep him alive, not only will the chance of him committing the crimes I stated earlier increase, but so will his chance of suicide. When an inmate dies in prison, there will be a full investigation, once again costing shitloads of tax payer money.

So yes, if an inmate wishes to be put to death, I don't see why we can't oblige that. Are we going to spend tax payer dollars on a psychologist convincing him that he should live the rest of his life in prison instead? Are we going to permanently put him down as suicide watch? Locking him up in a room far worse than regular prison cells? That spells torture to me.

Lastly, yes I agree that it is our duty to help criminals, but not criminals that are sentenced to death. We are essentially torturing them by forcing them to live out the rest of their lives in an eight by eight cell.
 
flamingdts said:
There is a constant "double check" before the sentence is finalized, that part is true. However, that does not suggest higher cost for killing him. The cost to the court COULD potentially cost a lot, but the same could be said for keeping him alive. It's a hypothetical situation all the way, not only for my points but for yours as well.
Click to expand...

Woah dude, I'm not arguing a case by case basis here. It's been proven that in most cases it costs more to deliver the death penalty than give them life in prison. It's a fact, backed up by numbers and stuff.

Yes, you may sum up my points as "keeping a murderer alive is a risk", but you should also know that if any of the risks I stated above actually occurs, the cost will far outweigh any appeals and whatnots (including more deaths and more grief). Again, a hypothetical situation.

And how could we forget that this is the MURDERER'S decision, not the court's? If a criminal wishes to be put to death, but you keep him alive, not only will the chance of him committing the crimes I stated earlier increase, but so will his chance of suicide. When an inmate dies in prison, there will be a full investigation, once again costing shitloads of tax payer money.

So yes, if an inmate wishes to be put to death, I don't see why we can't oblige that. Are we going to spend tax payer dollars on a psychologist convincing him that he should live the rest of his life in prison instead? Are we going to permanently put him down as suicide watch? Locking him up in a room far worse than regular prison cells? That spells torture to me.

Lastly, yes I agree that it is our duty to help criminals, but not criminals that are sentenced to death. We are essentially torturing them by forcing them to live out the rest of their lives in an eight by eight cell.
Click to expand...

Woah, wait, when did we start arguing for a person's right to suicide? If a person wants to die, they have the right to do it. This isn't a death penalty thing.
 
Sheepo said:
Woah dude, I'm not arguing a case by case basis here. It's been proven that in most cases it costs more to deliver the death penalty than give them life in prison. It's a fact, backed up by numbers and stuff.

Woah, wait, when did we start arguing for a person's right to suicide? If a person wants to die, they have the right to do it. This isn't a death penalty thing.
Click to expand...

flamingdts said:
This is a lose lose situation.

We are talking about a life here.

He took a life, so he should surrender his. However, it is HIS life, I think he should at least be allowed to take some control of what he has left. Sure, he didn't give his victim a chance, but torturing him doesn't make the justice system any better. It's an eye for an eye in the end. It doesn't matter how it's done, as long as it is done. There is no need to torture him, but there is a need to take his life.
Click to expand...

Sheepo said:
Something tells me I won't be able to convince you what a ****ed up ideal ya got there, so why don't I just give you the two fundamental practical reasons against it:

a) It's only an 'eye for an eye' when the justice system gets it right and knows exactly who did what under what circumstances. Which it doesn't, a lot.

b) Costs much more.
Click to expand...

I have yet to find any article which states killing criminals will cost more money than keeping them alive.

Yes, I believe the victim should die, but I also think it's sick to force him to live.
 
"I have yet to find any article which states killing criminals will cost more money than keeping them alive."
IS IT EVERY ****ING WEEK WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION!!?!

Seriously, bet me $15 that in the USA, it's cheaper to sentence a prisoner to death and execute him than it is for a life sentence and I'll prove you wrong. Otherwise, **** off becuase I can't be bothered going into this again.
 
Just found some articles.

I concede that it is cheaper to keep them alive than to kill them.
 
flamingdts said:
I have yet to find any article which states killing criminals will cost more money than keeping them alive.

Yes, I believe the victim should die, but I also think it's sick to force him to live.
Click to expand...

So you're saying letting a killer live is more inhumane than killing him... your rationalization... makes logical sense, but I feel you're kind of drawing at straws here. "An eye for an eye" is nothing but a cute sounding suggestion made by a king several centuries ago. It's third world shit. Killing some one for killing isn't justice, it's revenge. Living your entire life in prison isn't torture (especially not in comparison to execution), it offers the chance for redemption, healing, improving, as well as punishment. And if, and this is a big if, it could be 100% determined that a man feels genuine remorse for his crime, has paid his debt, and is safe to re-enter the world, he will be able to.
 
Sheepo said:
So you're saying letting a killer live is more inhumane than killing him... your rationalization... makes logical sense, but I feel you're kind of drawing at straws here. "An eye for an eye" is nothing but a cute sounding suggestion made by a king several centuries ago. It's third world shit. Killing some one for killing isn't justice, it's revenge. Living your entire life in prison isn't torture (especially not in comparison to execution), it offers the chance for redemption, healing, improving, as well as punishment. And if, and this is a big if, it could be 100% determined that a man feels genuine remorse for his crime, has paid his debt, and is safe to re-enter the world, he will be able to.
Click to expand...

No, I believe it is inhumane to force someone to live if they want to die. However, I am also not against executions.

The victims don't get second chances. The victims don't get to make a decision concerning their lives. The victims don't get anything at all. Assuming the criminal is guilty, and every single possible DNA evidence supports this, then if the law states he should be put to death, then so be it.

What I'm saying here is we are essentially torturing a man if he is sentenced to life in prison without parole. He has nothing to work for, because he will be in prison for the rest of his life, and he will never get a chance to leave.

And if you mean be given a chance to re enter the world as in when the convict is old and frail, then yes that is equally inhumane. Take you out of civilization for 50 years, throw you back in when you are 50 years behind.
 
I can't argue with you, I don't know if you're arguing for a person's right to end their own life or for the death penalty. I honestly have no clue what we're ****ing talking about.
 
Sheepo said:
I can't argue with you, I don't know if you're arguing for a person's right to end their own life or for the death penalty. I honestly have no clue what we're ****ing talking about.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ man read.

flamingdts said:
I have yet to find any article which states killing criminals will cost more money than keeping them alive.

Yes, I believe the victim should die, but I also think it's sick to force him to live.
Click to expand...

You even misinterpreted this as me saying "So you're saying letting a killer live is more inhumane than killing him... your rationalization... makes logical sense"

I'm saying I am not against executions, and I also think it's sick to force a man to live when he wants to be put to death.

You know what? Let's just stop the debating. They never get anywhere anyways. All it leads to is the eventual thread lock.

flamingdts out.
 
Yeah, you're arguing for a person's right to take their own life. Which isn't what we started arguing about and I haven't been arguing it at all.
 
Sheepo said:
Yeah, you're arguing for a person's right to take their own life. Which isn't what we started arguing about and I haven't been arguing it at all.
Click to expand...

No, I'm also arguing for execution.

For **** sake's can you please read. I freaking bolded everything for you and you still somehow get the wrong interpretations.

Can you see why I don't want to continue this any further?

As I was saying, flamingdts OUT.
 
I'm deaf and blind, but okay asshole.

Edit:

Okay, so you are arguing that life in prison is inhumane and you are also arguing 'If the law says kill em, so be it'? Really?
 
flamingdts said:
So yes, if an inmate wishes to be put to death, I don't see why we can't oblige that. Are we going to spend tax payer dollars on a psychologist convincing him that he should live the rest of his life in prison instead? Are we going to permanently put him down as suicide watch? Locking him up in a room far worse than regular prison cells? That spells torture to me.
Click to expand...

flamingdts said:
What I'm saying here is we are essentially torturing a man if he is sentenced to life in prison without parole. He has nothing to work for, because he will be in prison for the rest of his life, and he will never get a chance to leave.

And if you mean be given a chance to re enter the world as in when the convict is old and frail, then yes that is equally inhumane. Take you out of civilization for 50 years, throw you back in when you are 50 years behind.
Click to expand...
I don't know what makes you think being a prisoner makes everyone want to die. Shit. If your parents grounded you to your bedroom and took away the electronics, you'd ****ing kill yourself.

I don't know how many people spend 50 years in prison and get released - that sounds like an exaggeration. But anyway, it's not like Earth is another planet from prison, where nothing makes sense. I mean, yeah, it's a massive culture shock, but they'd be glad to smell the air and see the trees, etc. It's not like they'd go insane. How do you even figure being released from prison to be inhumane?
 
Sheepo said:
I'm deaf and blind, but okay asshole.

Edit:

Okay, so you are arguing that life in prison is inhumane and you are also arguing 'If the law says kill em, so be it'? Really?
Click to expand...

Just when I thought you got the point you go back to square 1.

I said it's inhumane to force a guy to live if he wants to die, I repeated that so many times. Of course you are somehow too high almighty to read my point eh?

I also said if the law says a criminal should die, so be it. That's because I'm not against execution. If you think I'm "inhumane" because I sounded cold, well, it's the internet.

For the last last time, flamingdts OUT.
 
flamingdts said:
For the last last time, flamingdts OUT.
Click to expand...

Oh no, please stay...:rolleyes:

I can't really decide where my stance is on the death penalty. It's important to understand why we are executing people and for what reasons. Is the main focus on a deterrent for others to take into consideration? I highly doubt it based on the statistics.

It seems to me the death penalty serves two purposes; revenge and deterrence. Since we can prove that deterrence isn't a factor than we're left with the former. There's also the people who have been directly affected by this convict's actions but again, the only solace they can get is knowing the person who has caused them so much pain is dead. I can't find a legitimate reason outside of that which would make the death penalty an appropriate means of justice. Maybe someone can provide some logical counter argument.

I offer no suggestions on how to fix the system because I don't have any. Perhaps there is some way to make a life sentence fiscally sensible and at the same time appropriate....who knows...

What I do know is that the current system is in place because this is our best attempt at satisfying the public.
 
I support the death penalty for three reasons, but only when the crime is especially heinous:

1. It brings closure to the victim's family.

2. Those that take a life forfeit their own.

3. Some serial killers who are unquestionably guilty are a danger to everyone around them.

Crimes of passion (such as a man killing his cheating wife and her partner) don't deserve the death penalty, whereas a serial killer who kills for pleasure obviously does.
 
Higlac said:
I support the death penalty for three reasons, but only when the crime is especially heinous:

1. It brings closure to the victim's family.

2. Those that take a life forfeit their own.

3. Some serial killers who are unquestionably guilty are a danger to everyone around them.

Crimes of passion (such as a man killing his cheating wife and her partner) don't deserve the death penalty, whereas a serial killer who kills for pleasure obviously does.
Click to expand...


but you said: "Those that take a life forfeit their own."

that's pretty much every person ever covicted of 1st, 2nd, third degree and manslaughter. but then you go on to say only if it's especially heinous. killing prostitutes eating their flesh and burying their remains in your basement isnt the same as accidentily running over a pedestrian but under your rules they both merit the same punishment; death. further; a "serial killer" could also be a "mercy" killer like Dr Jack Kevorkian

I dont even have to kill anyone all I have to do is practice Passive euthanasia; (ie: withhold life saving medication)

under your rules all of these people would get the death penalty along with hardened criminals

not too mention that there is no appeal system when new evidence comes to light after you've been executed:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
 
Like I said in the first sentence, only when the crime is especially heinous. It certainly isn't good when someone is killed, but at the same time, society has evolved past Hammurabi.

Kevorkian is a completely different can of worms.
 
Murder because the killer finds it pleasurable rather than murder because the killer feels justified. As for the demographics, that's why we have a trial by jury of our peers.
 
Higlac said:
Murder because the killer finds it pleasurable rather than murder because the killer feels justified. As for the demographics, that's why we have a trial by jury of our peers.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying but what I think stern is alluding to is the process of classifying the crime proportionally with the criminal isn't an exact science. There are too many variables involved to classify a crime and enact an appropriate sentence.
 
Higlac said:
Murder because the killer finds it pleasurable rather than murder because the killer feels justified. As for the demographics, that's why we have a trial by jury of our peers.
Click to expand...

I kill a cop because he's trying to kill me; I'm justified in my mind. you'd have a hard time proving intent
 
Now you're just pulling excuses out of thin air.

Tyguy said:
I get what you're saying but what I think stern is alluding to is the process of classifying the crime proportionally with the criminal isn't an exact science. There are too many variables involved to classify a crime and enact an appropriate sentence.
Click to expand...

True, but when you get a killer similar to Jack the Ripper, then I think that it's pretty easy to figure out how things should go down.
 
Higlac said:
Now you're just pulling excuses out of thin air.
Click to expand...

excuses? it's up to the prosecution to prove intent. if they have to prove the intent was pleasure they run the risk of it turning against them because any evidence would be circumstantial and or hearsay.
 
For what reason would a cop be trying to kill you? Either A) he was corrupt and had his own reasons, or B) you merited being shot at.

If A then you probably have no chance in court anyways, and if B then you have no chance in court anyways.

Intent can be deduced by the way that the victim was killed and the situation in which it took place.
 
it doesnt matter the reason. all it matters is that the person would use that as an excuse. my point is giving such a broad definition of the justification for the use of capital punishmnet would lead to a whole whack of legal headaches. as it stands it's hard enough to prove lack of remorse, proving it was out of pleasure and not say ...sef defense would be difficult and givign the perp a way out
 
That's why I said that it should only be used for especially heinous crimes.

Say that there is a string of murders where the victims are all found tied, cut and semen is found within the cuts and vagina. Evidence points to the act of tying the victims up and raping the body while slowly killing them.

Sick shit like that deserves the death penalty, everything else can go to solitary confinement.
 
Higlac said:
That's why I said that it should only be used for especially heinous crimes.

Say that there is a string of murders where the victims are all found tied, cut and semen is found within the cuts and vagina. Evidence points to the act of tying the victims up and raping the body while slowly killing them.

Sick shit like that deserves the death penalty, everything else can go to solitary confinement.
Click to expand...

this is needless as it would have been a death penalty crime regardless if that's what happened or not (if it's a death penalty state). multiple murders is more than enough to get a death sentence in any of the states that offer it
 
CptStern said:
this is needless as it would have been a death penalty crime regardless if that's what happened or not (if it's a death penalty state). multiple murders is more than enough to get a death sentence in any of the states that offer it
Click to expand...

So why are we arguing then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
Inmate on death row denied appeal because it was quitting time, was then executed
Replies
33
Views
2K
Flyingdebris
Flyingdebris
N
A rape witnessed, a rape ignored
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Nemesis6
N
K
Things Your Media Momma Didn't Tell You
3 4 5
Replies
186
Views
18K
fishdbaz
fishdbaz
Back
Top