[quote]dmaddox wrote:
WoW.
Didn’t Britain alrady try this with Australia?[/quote]
nope - they gave them a whole continent and didn’t seal it off . . .
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I support the death penalty, but I don’t think it’s the be all end all of law enforcement. I honestly don’t think it’s going to prevent crime by scaring criminals into not wanting it. Afterall, some people serve time in prison and still continue to break laws. They most likely won’t be deterred by the death penalty. However, it will eliminate criminals once they have broken some laws.
The guy that killed Jessica Lunsford was sentenced to death after her murder but never really did anything to warrant the death penalty before that. I seriously doubt he would have been scared off of murdering her had he known he would receive the death penalty. I can’t speak for the guy in Utah either.
[/quote]
Here is the best idea to deter murder, rape, and other horendious crimes against humanity. You have a one room jail cell with a chair in the middle of it. If you have been proven to have committed the crime including DNA and multiple eye witnesses including video footage then you sit in the chair. When someone does the next crime you are taken out of the chair and executed. The next person takes the chair in the middle of the room and then the cycle starts again. I know it is not perfect, but this would be a deterent.
The issue with execution not working today because there is way too long of a waiting period between the crime and the punishment. As we have seen above it took 25 years. You still get to live, not a great life because prison sucks, but you get to live. I have been in a maximum security prison with the general population. You want to talk about scarry. It was the prison that the guy know for the movie Texas Chainsaw Masacre was being held. I was there singing and we had 5 guys and 5 girls. They made us guys walk between the prisoners and the girls to get to the chapel. You want to talk about a tense moment. Yes there were guards around, but the inmates out numbered us 2 to 1.
Sorry I digressed. my point is that the governement needs to shorten the time between the crime and the punishment. This will make it a better deterent. [/quote]
Well, if anyone could really find the sure bet deterrent for crime then I hope they let us know. I know the current prison/legal system is far too lenient on criminals. Some are seriously too worried about a criminals rights. I don’t think a prisoner should be tortured or anything. I just believe that they should serve their time. I think that Atkins that was in the Manson family who was denied parole even though she was dying from cancer is a good example of what should be expected. She committed a heinous crime so should serve her time regardless of her current conditions.[/quote]
Lenient? What the shower stall rapes, the beatings from the guards, the obnoxious gas dropped on inmates because someone is not being subordinate? What would you rather happen?
What about the fear that you live with of upsetting the guards and being in danger of other inmates and the pressure to join prison gangs to watch your back? [/quote]
yes but we are still paying for it,
and the death penalty is much cheaper than housing and inmate. If you are refering to the stupid article like a year ago, they were including the cost of keeping them for like 15yrs into the cost fo the death penalty.
But from another side, if you would just punish very quickly and also not let criminals back out after certain kinds of crimes, it would decrease their ability to propogate as well and decrease their influence in society.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I support the death penalty, but I don’t think it’s the be all end all of law enforcement. I honestly don’t think it’s going to prevent crime by scaring criminals into not wanting it. Afterall, some people serve time in prison and still continue to break laws. They most likely won’t be deterred by the death penalty. However, it will eliminate criminals once they have broken some laws.
The guy that killed Jessica Lunsford was sentenced to death after her murder but never really did anything to warrant the death penalty before that. I seriously doubt he would have been scared off of murdering her had he known he would receive the death penalty. I can’t speak for the guy in Utah either.
[/quote]
Here is the best idea to deter murder, rape, and other horendious crimes against humanity. You have a one room jail cell with a chair in the middle of it. If you have been proven to have committed the crime including DNA and multiple eye witnesses including video footage then you sit in the chair. When someone does the next crime you are taken out of the chair and executed. The next person takes the chair in the middle of the room and then the cycle starts again. I know it is not perfect, but this would be a deterent.
The issue with execution not working today because there is way too long of a waiting period between the crime and the punishment. As we have seen above it took 25 years. You still get to live, not a great life because prison sucks, but you get to live. I have been in a maximum security prison with the general population. You want to talk about scarry. It was the prison that the guy know for the movie Texas Chainsaw Masacre was being held. I was there singing and we had 5 guys and 5 girls. They made us guys walk between the prisoners and the girls to get to the chapel. You want to talk about a tense moment. Yes there were guards around, but the inmates out numbered us 2 to 1.
Sorry I digressed. my point is that the governement needs to shorten the time between the crime and the punishment. This will make it a better deterent. [/quote]
Well, if anyone could really find the sure bet deterrent for crime then I hope they let us know. I know the current prison/legal system is far too lenient on criminals. Some are seriously too worried about a criminals rights. I don’t think a prisoner should be tortured or anything. I just believe that they should serve their time. I think that Atkins that was in the Manson family who was denied parole even though she was dying from cancer is a good example of what should be expected. She committed a heinous crime so should serve her time regardless of her current conditions.[/quote]
Lenient? What the shower stall rapes, the beatings from the guards, the obnoxious gas dropped on inmates because someone is not being subordinate? What would you rather happen?
What about the fear that you live with of upsetting the guards and being in danger of other inmates and the pressure to join prison gangs to watch your back? [/quote]
yes but we are still paying for it,
and the death penalty is much cheaper than housing and inmate. If you are refering to the stupid article like a year ago, they were including the cost of keeping them for like 15yrs into the cost fo the death penalty.
But from another side, if you would just punish very quickly and also not let criminals back out after certain kinds of crimes, it would decrease their ability to propogate as well and decrease their influence in society.
[/quote]
So we shouldn’t let people appeal their verdicts?
Death Penalty; I like the subject.
While I’m not a fan of it (call me about 65:35 in favour of other sanctions, not necessary ‘life’, which is a topic in itself), I’m very much in opposition to hanging & poisoning.
Too complicated, expensive, you can screw it up bigtime, can be unnecessary messy, morally wrong etc
Don’t get me started on the chair which makes me ashamed to be a human being.
Firing squad is barely ok cause of the human component.
Ideal would be a select bunch of trained headsmen who operate using a sword or axe -I kid you not, I’m dead serious- and have the right to refuse carrying out the sentence. (In my jolly Schwarztopia these pros would not only be higly proficient with their tools, they also have to be knowledgeable in a number of humane sciences)
Guillotining comes second, although not very close.
Decapitation is quick and painless, in the case of a guillotine, we are talking a few seconds. Human are very activly involved. You don’t (really) need a doctor. The list of potential screwups is minimal and the setup is easypeasy etc.
While I have no problem with seeing murderers put to death I don’t support the death penalty. The reason why is because te way the legal system works makes it way too easy for an innocent person to end up on death row.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
While I have no problem with seeing murderers put to death I don’t support the death penalty. The reason why is because te way the legal system works makes it way too easy for an innocent person to end up on death row.[/quote]
got any stats to back that assumption up? I’m not saying you’re wrong - just want the data if you got it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
While I have no problem with seeing murderers put to death I don’t support the death penalty. The reason why is because te way the legal system works makes it way too easy for an innocent person to end up on death row.[/quote]
That really depends on where you are though. For example in Maryland if there isn’t 1) DNA evidence, 2) A video tape of the crime being committed, or I believe 3) being caught in the act by law enforcement officers you are not eligible for the death penalty period.
I for one am for the death penalty and believe rapist should be eligible for the death penalty as well.
If we remove our own personal biases from an evaluation of the death penalty, it becomes clear that the death penalty does not make sense anymore. The appeals process for deathrow inmates ends up costing taxpayers more than it does to simply incarcerate these criminals for life with no possibility of parole. While it does not happen often at all (almost never) there are people on deathrow who have been proven innocent of the crime they were convicted for after the development of new ways to examine physical evidence. This is an unacceptable possibility.
Also, while the victims’ families may wish for the death penalty, murderers on trial are facing the people (as in the people vs so and so, NOT Laci Peterson’s family vs. Scott Peterson or Sharon Tate’s family vs Charles Manson), not just the victims’ families. The wishes of these families should not merit any heavier consideration than any of the other taxpayers that foot the bill for the trial and incarceration. Punishment of crimes in our legal system does not exist in order to placate the victims’ families but rather to protect society as a whole from these monsters in the future. The punishment also exists as a deterrent, but we don’t really know how much of a deterrent this is for violent criminals in general. Maybe we do with a few individual cases, but we’ll never know if, for instance, how many violent crimes are avoided due strictly to the possibility of execution upon conviction.
Regarding the deterrent factor, this seems to make little difference to many criminals regardless of whether or not the death penalty is on the table. Hell, for some death is a welcome respite. Perhaps lifetime incarceration amongst the general prison population is a better substitute. Since the overall effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is impossible to know, the need to ensure that these fuckers stay off the streets is paramount; so our own personal preferences regarding what the criminal does or does not deserve is immaterial, as are the wishes of the victims’ families. The questions are: can we keep violent criminals who are eligible to receive the death penalty off the streets w/o killing them? Do we imprison criminals in order to satisfy our own hatred of them, to make us feel that they got what they deserved? Or do we imprison criminals in order to protect us? Deathrow-type criminals can still be kept away from society permanently, at a lesser cost, and w/o raising the myriad moral/ethical issues that invariably arise when discussing the death penalty.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If we remove our own personal biases from an evaluation of the death penalty, it becomes clear that the death penalty does not make sense anymore. The appeals process for deathrow inmates ends up costing taxpayers more than it does to simply incarcerate these criminals for life with no possibility of parole. While it does not happen often at all (almost never) there are people on deathrow who have been proven innocent of the crime they were convicted for after the development of new ways to examine physical evidence. This is an unacceptable possibility.
Also, while the victims’ families may wish for the death penalty, murderers on trial are facing the people (as in the people vs so and so, NOT Laci Peterson’s family vs. Scott Peterson or Sharon Tate’s family vs Charles Manson), not just the victims’ families. The wishes of these families should not merit any heavier consideration than any of the other taxpayers that foot the bill for the trial and incarceration. Punishment of crimes in our legal system does not exist in order to placate the victims’ families but rather to protect society as a whole from these monsters in the future. The punishment also exists as a deterrent, but we don’t really know how much of a deterrent this is for violent criminals in general. Maybe we do with a few individual cases, but we’ll never know if, for instance, how many violent crimes are avoided due strictly to the possibility of execution upon conviction.
Regarding the deterrent factor, this seems to make little difference to many criminals regardless of whether or not the death penalty is on the table. Hell, for some death is a welcome respite. Perhaps lifetime incarceration amongst the general prison population is a better substitute. Since the overall effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is impossible to know, the need to ensure that these fuckers stay off the streets is paramount; so our own personal preferences regarding what the criminal does or does not deserve is immaterial, as are the wishes of the victims’ families. The questions are: can we keep violent criminals who are eligible to receive the death penalty off the streets w/o killing them? Do we imprison criminals in order to satisfy our own hatred of them, to make us feel that they got what they deserved? Or do we imprison criminals in order to protect us? Deathrow-type criminals can still be kept away from society permanently, at a lesser cost, and w/o raising the myriad moral/ethical issues that invariably arise when discussing the death penalty.[/quote]
I hear what you’re saying, but I have a hard time believing it cost more money to house a felon for the remainder of their life, depending on the duration of that life of course, as oppose to putting them to death. I mean the state/fed pays for everything when an inmate is incarcerated were as the state/fed may or may not be paying for legal fee, court cost, etc…If you have some numbers to the contray I would be interested to see them for sure though.
I think first and foremost the appeals process needs to be addresses. Cases involving the death penalty should be pushed to the front of the line and really the whole process should take no more then a year or two at most. I also like the idea that DNA evidence/Video evidence has to be present in order to receive the death penalty.
My line of thinking is you wouldn’t take a rabid dog that bites a child and put them in a kennel for the remainder of their life, instead you’d put it down. I don’t understand why we treat people any different. For crying out loud in certain parts of the world, like Australia for example, if a dumb ass goes swimming in croc infested waters and gets eaten we hunt down and kill the croc. Yet we seem to feel it’s wrong to “put down” a murderer. Doesn’t make sense to me.
What always kills me (pun?) about this debate is people who claim that a life sentence is a harsher penalty than execution and besides, what if mistakes are made? Hmmmmm.
I know that in Dallas County they have started overturning some verdicts from several years ago with DNA evidence. Some guys have literally been in prison for 30+ years. It’s hard to tell someone, “Well, we made a mistake. Sorry for the last 30 years.” There will always be both sides of the argument. I think that’s why so many places, Texas included, have phased out he death penalty. You have your rare inmates, but many of them have been on deathrow for some time. Texas actually stated a few years ago that it cost the state far less money to put a person in prison for life than execute them.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If we remove our own personal biases from an evaluation of the death penalty, it becomes clear that the death penalty does not make sense anymore. The appeals process for deathrow inmates ends up costing taxpayers more than it does to simply incarcerate these criminals for life with no possibility of parole. While it does not happen often at all (almost never) there are people on deathrow who have been proven innocent of the crime they were convicted for after the development of new ways to examine physical evidence. This is an unacceptable possibility.
Also, while the victims’ families may wish for the death penalty, murderers on trial are facing the people (as in the people vs so and so, NOT Laci Peterson’s family vs. Scott Peterson or Sharon Tate’s family vs Charles Manson), not just the victims’ families. The wishes of these families should not merit any heavier consideration than any of the other taxpayers that foot the bill for the trial and incarceration. Punishment of crimes in our legal system does not exist in order to placate the victims’ families but rather to protect society as a whole from these monsters in the future. The punishment also exists as a deterrent, but we don’t really know how much of a deterrent this is for violent criminals in general. Maybe we do with a few individual cases, but we’ll never know if, for instance, how many violent crimes are avoided due strictly to the possibility of execution upon conviction.
Regarding the deterrent factor, this seems to make little difference to many criminals regardless of whether or not the death penalty is on the table. Hell, for some death is a welcome respite. Perhaps lifetime incarceration amongst the general prison population is a better substitute. Since the overall effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is impossible to know, the need to ensure that these fuckers stay off the streets is paramount; so our own personal preferences regarding what the criminal does or does not deserve is immaterial, as are the wishes of the victims’ families. The questions are: can we keep violent criminals who are eligible to receive the death penalty off the streets w/o killing them? Do we imprison criminals in order to satisfy our own hatred of them, to make us feel that they got what they deserved? Or do we imprison criminals in order to protect us? Deathrow-type criminals can still be kept away from society permanently, at a lesser cost, and w/o raising the myriad moral/ethical issues that invariably arise when discussing the death penalty.[/quote]
I hear what you’re saying, but I have a hard time believing it cost more money to house a felon for the remainder of their life, depending on the duration of that life of course, as oppose to putting them to death. I mean the state/fed pays for everything when an inmate is incarcerated were as the state/fed may or may not be paying for legal fee, court cost, etc…If you have some numbers to the contray I would be interested to see them for sure though.
I think first and foremost the appeals process needs to be addresses. Cases involving the death penalty should be pushed to the front of the line and really the whole process should take no more then a year or two at most. I also like the idea that DNA evidence/Video evidence has to be present in order to receive the death penalty.
My line of thinking is you wouldn’t take a rabid dog that bites a child and put them in a kennel for the remainder of their life, instead you’d put it down. I don’t understand why we treat people any different. For crying out loud in certain parts of the world, like Australia for example, if a dumb ass goes swimming in croc infested waters and gets eaten we hunt down and kill the croc. Yet we seem to feel it’s wrong to “put down” a murderer. Doesn’t make sense to me. [/quote]
We aren’t animals in the same sense that a dog or a crocodile is an animal, even in regards to murderers. It’s probably not much of a slippery slope, but if we treat murderers like animals by executing them (not that execution in and of itself is treating someone like an animal per se) and if we use the case of a rabid dog as justification for such action, how long will it be before we begin to treat lesser criminals like animals?
If we do so to lesser criminals, we severely damage the already-small chance they have of rehabilitating themselves. The best thing for society would be for these felons who ARE let out of prison to become contributing members of society again rather than commit crimes that land them back in prison.
If we treat the most violent of criminals like dogs, and then it works, we’ll be tempted to enact similar measures against lesser criminals, thereby ruining (or at least seriously curtailing) their chances of becoming normal people within society once more.
As for the cost of housing vs executing a criminal, I’ve provided a link to a non-partisan website called deathpenaltyinfo.com.
According to the site, the ADDITIONAL cost of housing a deathrow inmate vs a lifetime imprisonment inmate in California is $90,000 per year. That comes out to about $63.3 million each year. In Maryland, it costs $37 million PER EXECUTION. Federal murder cases cost 8x more in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Defendants in federal cases were also found to be more likely to be convicted in a death penalty case. Defendants whose trial costs were under $320,000 (which is the bottom 1/3 of the cost bracket) had a 44% chance of being convicted with the death penalty involved whereas the upper 2/3 had a 19% chance.
In New Jersey, since 1983 the state has totaled $253 million in death penalty trial costs, yet of the 197 capital trials, there were only 60 convictions, 50 of which were reversed. None of the remaining ten have been executed. That’s $11 million a year for zero executions.
In Washington state, death penalty trials cost $470,000 more and appellate defense costs for appeals average an additional $100,000.
A study by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury recently released a report indicating that there is little to no evidence to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent to criminals and that 28% of death penalty cases are reversed upon appeal.
In Kansas, Florida, NC, Indiana, Ohio and Texas, similar costs are accrued in death penalty cases as well. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that about $1.6 billion in extra costs are accrued by counties each year and that these costs are paid for primarily by reducing police and highway funding, as well as by increasing taxes.
What is the point of a legal system: to deter crime or to protect innocent citizens from criminals?
I tend to think the latter, with the former being an added bonus.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the point of a legal system: to deter crime or to protect innocent citizens from criminals?
I tend to think the latter, with the former being an added bonus.[/quote]
It’s both, but whichever is more important is in the eye of the beholder. They are basically the same anyways. Deterring crime serves to protect citizens and citizens are protected from criminals by deterring them from crime and arresting/convicting them when they do commit crimes.
But the legal system’s punishments only serve to remove criminals from the rest of society as both a deterrent and a protective measure; they are not handed out according to the wishes of the victims and their families or other people. That punishment can exist w/o the death penalty and still meet its aims; namely to protect and deter. It is virtually impossible to estimate how many violent crimes do not happen as a result of the possibility of execution. The death penalty does the same as lifetime imprisonment w/o parole as far as meeting the need to protect/deter, but it costs less. The only difference between lifetime prison and death is that it satisfies those who wish to see the criminal dead; it does not protect any more so than lifetime imprisonment does and it is indeterminant as to whether or not it deters any more effectively.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Death Penalty; I like the subject.
While I’m not a fan of it (call me about 65:35 in favour of other sanctions, not necessary ‘life’, which is a topic in itself), I’m very much in opposition to hanging & poisoning.
Too complicated, expensive, you can screw it up bigtime, can be unnecessary messy, morally wrong etc
Don’t get me started on the chair which makes me ashamed to be a human being.
Firing squad is barely ok cause of the human component.
Ideal would be a select bunch of trained headsmen who operate using a sword or axe -I kid you not, I’m dead serious- and have the right to refuse carrying out the sentence. (In my jolly Schwarztopia these pros would not only be higly proficient with their tools, they also have to be knowledgeable in a number of humane sciences)
Guillotining comes second, although not very close.
Decapitation is quick and painless, in the case of a guillotine, we are talking a few seconds. Human are very activly involved. You don’t (really) need a doctor. The list of potential screwups is minimal and the setup is easypeasy etc.
[/quote]
Except the pints of blood the shoot out of the arteries.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
While I have no problem with seeing murderers put to death I don’t support the death penalty. The reason why is because te way the legal system works makes it way too easy for an innocent person to end up on death row.[/quote]
got any stats to back that assumption up? I’m not saying you’re wrong - just want the data if you got it.[/quote]
What about that black guy that got taken off Death Row a few months ago because of DNA testing proved no way he could be the guy? One is too many.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If we remove our own personal biases from an evaluation of the death penalty, it becomes clear that the death penalty does not make sense anymore. The appeals process for deathrow inmates ends up costing taxpayers more than it does to simply incarcerate these criminals for life with no possibility of parole. While it does not happen often at all (almost never) there are people on deathrow who have been proven innocent of the crime they were convicted for after the development of new ways to examine physical evidence. This is an unacceptable possibility.
Also, while the victims’ families may wish for the death penalty, murderers on trial are facing the people (as in the people vs so and so, NOT Laci Peterson’s family vs. Scott Peterson or Sharon Tate’s family vs Charles Manson), not just the victims’ families. The wishes of these families should not merit any heavier consideration than any of the other taxpayers that foot the bill for the trial and incarceration. Punishment of crimes in our legal system does not exist in order to placate the victims’ families but rather to protect society as a whole from these monsters in the future. The punishment also exists as a deterrent, but we don’t really know how much of a deterrent this is for violent criminals in general. Maybe we do with a few individual cases, but we’ll never know if, for instance, how many violent crimes are avoided due strictly to the possibility of execution upon conviction.
Regarding the deterrent factor, this seems to make little difference to many criminals regardless of whether or not the death penalty is on the table. Hell, for some death is a welcome respite. Perhaps lifetime incarceration amongst the general prison population is a better substitute. Since the overall effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is impossible to know, the need to ensure that these fuckers stay off the streets is paramount; so our own personal preferences regarding what the criminal does or does not deserve is immaterial, as are the wishes of the victims’ families. The questions are: can we keep violent criminals who are eligible to receive the death penalty off the streets w/o killing them? Do we imprison criminals in order to satisfy our own hatred of them, to make us feel that they got what they deserved? Or do we imprison criminals in order to protect us? Deathrow-type criminals can still be kept away from society permanently, at a lesser cost, and w/o raising the myriad moral/ethical issues that invariably arise when discussing the death penalty.[/quote]
I hear what you’re saying, but I have a hard time believing it cost more money to house a felon for the remainder of their life, depending on the duration of that life of course, as oppose to putting them to death. I mean the state/fed pays for everything when an inmate is incarcerated were as the state/fed may or may not be paying for legal fee, court cost, etc…If you have some numbers to the contray I would be interested to see them for sure though.
I think first and foremost the appeals process needs to be addresses. Cases involving the death penalty should be pushed to the front of the line and really the whole process should take no more then a year or two at most. I also like the idea that DNA evidence/Video evidence has to be present in order to receive the death penalty.
My line of thinking is you wouldn’t take a rabid dog that bites a child and put them in a kennel for the remainder of their life, instead you’d put it down. I don’t understand why we treat people any different. For crying out loud in certain parts of the world, like Australia for example, if a dumb ass goes swimming in croc infested waters and gets eaten we hunt down and kill the croc. Yet we seem to feel it’s wrong to “put down” a murderer. Doesn’t make sense to me. [/quote]
Because, there is different reasons, but I’ll stick to secular reasons. Killing a human should be in self-defense, no other time is it justified to kill another human being. If someone is killed, then the deed is done, nothing can be done to fix the situation, except maybe compensation for the loss. Otherwise killing another human is just adding one more person to the killed list.
However, the reason for the death penalty was the group as a whole or its representatives “the State” was claiming self-defense and that is the “justified homicide” known as the death penalty comes from.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the point of a legal system: to deter crime or to protect innocent citizens from criminals?
I tend to think the latter, with the former being an added bonus.[/quote]
Point of the legal system?
To deter crime, how can you protect someone from something that has already happened?
When I say deter crime, I mean to restrain those that do not cooperate with the coercion of the state without having to use their guns on them.