send his ass to jail, really really bad things happen to ppl that kill/abuse kids there (or so I have heard)
What they should do is send him to jail for 25 years; then at the end of his jail term bury his body in sand, pour honey on his head, set the fire ants to him; make him suck a dog’s dick from that position; shove maggots down his throat, eyes and ears; slice his tongue up; pull all his teeth out with pliars; pull all his hair out with pliars, and then swing big titanium drivers at his head till he dies.
I think they should give him to us for one hour, to do as we please.
I am of the opinion that deterrents against extreme actions do not usually work.
The statistics I recall from my college days are that the average murderer is not a serial killer, he is a one-time killer often performing a “crime of passion”. In these cases there are no thoughts whatsoever given to the consequences of the action. There may be specialized cases where you can create a deterrant, but the overall numbers will probably remain pretty similar.
Oh, and when you die, you rot.
I agree with Dan too. ITs not cost effective, its not an effective deterrent. And our justice system is so off, that a permanent solution such as death ends up being pretty racist and inaccurate. Plus, do you think most criminals think about the penalty before they commit the crime?
I’m all for it except for the fact that sometimes the system doesn’t work and people can be wrongly convicted.
Y’all should watch The Life of David Gale. Great movie starring Kevin Spacey as a death row inmate.
Ship him to Texas, we’ve killed 5 already this year (it could be 4 or 6).
If it was someone in my family I’d want first crack at him.
It may not deter others, but if he is fried, he will not be around to kill again. And I would much rather pay to see him fried that to pay to keep him alive.
You want a cost effective way to put this piece of shit to death??I got it,and I’d enjoy it.I’d like to tie this fuckers hands and feet,spread eagle.Than sit on his chest and strangle him till he almost passes out.
Then,in a sudden fit of remorse,get off him,tell him how wrong it was for me to do this to him.Let a sense of relief set in for him.Then sit on his chest,smile,and say
“changed my mind”.
For those that agree with Dan McVicker:
You’ve set up points that are mutually exclusive, barring some major scientific advances. The only way to “be 100% certain” of someone’s guilt or innocence, as opposed to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard under which we operate, is basically to disprove all other possible explanations – this would be an incredibly long, expensive undertaking.
The reason putting a person to death is so expensive is because of the fact that they get so many “bites at the apple” as it were. Numerous appeals, an incredible standard of accuracy as far as both procedure and fact, and very long trials are all facets of the quest for accuracy in the verdict - and they all lead to a more “expensive” verdict. Not to mention that the cost of keeping the person on death row is added to that cost, which would be substantially similar to the cost of life imprisonment (but less, because, it is assumed, it is a shorter period).
As far as accuracy goes, there are two types of errors you can have in our system – let’s call them Type I and Type II. A Type I error is that an innocent person is found guilty and punished. A Type II error is that a guilty person is found innocent and set free. If you minimize one error type, you necessarily maximize the other, given a certain percentage of total errors. Our system is already incredibly slanted in favor of minimizing Type I errors as far as the procedures go. In fact, if you check the trial records, the vast majority of the “innocent” people who were originally handed the death penalty and then freed found their convictions reversed not because of exonerating evidence (i.e. something proving their innocence) but rather because of some procedural error that occurred in their original trial (many times one could make a very strong argument that the procedural error was not even material, but as I said we jump through many hoops to avoid Type I errors).
Now, this is how our system is constructed. Many people will mouth the quote “it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than it is for 1 innocent man to be convicted.” But from a utilitarian standpoint, that is not necessarily so. If you let 100 guilty murderers or rapists back out into society, and they had a 50% recidivism rate, is society really better off? Argue that to the further 50 victims or their families. No matter which side you favor (minimizing Type I or Type II errors that is), it is important to consider the victims of the crimes, not just the accused, as you formulate your position.
Now, as to the death penalty as a deterrent, just do me the favor of assuming that most criminals are capable of intuitively considering some basic odds. How many murders or rapes are committed in the U.S. each year? I don’t know the answer, but assume some large number. For what percentage of those is someone charged? Of those, how many are not plea bargained down to a lesser charge than 1st degree murder? Of those, how many are actually convicted of 1st-degree murder? Of those, how many are actually sentenced to death? And of those, on how many is the sentence actually enacted? Factor in that the results will vary by state (think NY v. TX). I think it is plain to see that the death penalty could not possibly be much of a deterrent when the odds of having it actually carried out are so miniscule. Even the stupidest criminals could roughly intuit that they would need to be unlucky or stupid in numerous ways for it even to become a possibility. This is especially true of the type of career criminal that has gotten away with crimes before, or has worked through the system and plea-bargained his way out of more egregious offenses. Not to mention the fact that even of those convicted, most spend upwards of 20 years on death row. How is the death penalty supposed to act as a deterrent under those circumstances?
So, therefore, if you want a death penalty that is an effective deterrent, you must allow it to be more quickly and broadly applied (BTW, this would also substantially reduce its cost, from a cold-hearted economic perspective). That is also mutually exclusive with the idea of minimizing the error rate of Type I errors (note: You can minimize the overall error rate without doing anything about how the procedures favor Type I v. Type II – for instance, genetic evidence would reduce both types of error).
So while all your points sound good in theory, what you’re basically saying is that you don’t think the death penalty can be available on a nationwide basis, on a theoretical level – It is impossible to satisfy all of your requirements on a system-wide basis. Then again, it is also impossible to satisfy those criteria for life imprisonment.
Which leads to the more basic question of why you punish people in the first place. But that’s a whole 'nother post.
Suffice it to say, I am for the death penalty. I hope this guy is actually killed on death row by other inmates a la Jeffrey Dahmner. FYI, I have a personal connection to a horrible crime those of you in KS might recognize: The Carr Brothers. I hope both of those two die far before the state can kill them, and that they rot in hell. 'Nuff said.
speaking of economy. i heard that in China, they execute you via firing squad. here is the catch though…after they shoot your ass, they send a bill to your family to pay for the ammo!
now thats cost effective!
I have to ask roark1, exactly how many people on death row were found innocent? If you know there are “too many”, then you certainly must know the number, right? Do you? If you have to guess, then a guess of zero is as good as any other number and you can’t back up your claim. And while you’re at it, you should figure out how many were actually innocent and how many were released due to procedural errors. If you can’t do that, then you’re just spouting propaganda. Just 'cause you see it in a movie doesn’t make it true.
I’m all for the death penalty, but only for people who are a cancer on society and humanity. You don’t negotiate with cancer, you don’t try to rehabilitate it, you don’t worry about its rights, you don’t even punish it. You extract it and kill it, period. Serial killing qualifies, as does terrorism and child killing. On the other hand, if you just murder one person, then I think punishment through life in prison is fine.
BB: What a post! Also, if I could write half as convincingly good as you, I`d be the happiest man alive.
Since were not going to change the system overnight, heres an new addition that could help in the meanwhile:
Recedivists don`t get a second chance to get out. Fool the system once, shame on the system. Try to fool the system twice, death on you.
But, like all simple solutions, you`ll never see it implemented.
BB, every bit of credible research that I’ve ever come across supports McVicker’s points. I would love nothing more than to see every murderer, rapist, and child molester put through ten times the amount of pain that they inflicted on their victims. However, the way police departments and the United States judicial system functions is just much too screwed up to be putting people to death.
The only way to be completely certain of someone’s guilt is through DNA testing. Even confessions can’t be trusted. We live in a country where being poor is pretty much an admission of guilt if you’re accused of a crime. Keep in mind that I’m not some bleeding heart liberal. I’m actually pretty conservative on most issues. However, when a number of innocent people die every year at the hand of their own government, something is obviously wrong with the system.
firing squads are a neat way to go. i hear that the shooters often don’t shoot to kill on the first shot
Yorrick: Since 1973, 112 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence (these numbers are accurate through 2003). Obviously more have been released since then. And yes, 112+ is too many.
Ahhh, if they ain’t guilty for what they’re fried for, they’re probably guilty of somethin’
BB, I remember the Carr brothers. There is nothing you can do to them that will equal the suffering these two inflicted upon their victims, and the quicker they are disposed of the better.
Quick point roark. The evidence in all of those cases wasn’t necessarily of their innocense. I don’t have numbers in front of me, but as I recall the vast majority basically got new evidence that allowed them to get off on procedural or other technical grounds. This is a far different thing than to say there was evidence of their innocense.
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Prison is too easy for some people. As far as rape goes, I think you should cut their penis off. There should be some penalty that would make them think. To make prison less appealing they should remove Gyms, TVs and libraries for repeat offenders. Why waste the money on people that cannot be rehabilitated.
Me Solomon Grundy