[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I don’t think we will be tempted to enact similar measures against lesser criminals; if anything there is social pressure to remove the death penalty all together.
You need to keep the lessor crims away from the real fuckups. Executing the real fuckups certainly helps.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
As for the cost of housing vs executing a criminal, I’ve provided a link to a non-partisan website called deathpenaltyinfo.com.
[/quote]
While they might be non-partisan the report is misleading. The extra costs come from extra appeals.
Basically the extra cost is to…get this…to ensure that the criminal is guilty because they don’t want to put an innocent man to death. So the death penalty is forcing the state to do a more thorough and better investigation.
As an innocent person then you are much better off on deathrow than life without parole. That sort of destroys the argument against the death penalty from the “innocent being executed” angle.
[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]
I don’t know what kind of statistics you would want to to see on this subject. Do you feel that it is acceptable to execute an innocent person every now and then so long as you get to execute guilty ones as well? If so what would you consider an acceptable ratio of guilty to innocent people being executed?
I base my assumption on watching news stories of people being exhonerated after spending years in jail or on death row. Some of it is because of how the legal system works. It’s not like aht you see in the movies or TV shows.
In the real world you do get overzealous prosecutors who are trying to make a name for themselves and have all the resources of the state behind them. In the real world public defenders sometimes are kids who are fresh out of school with little to no courtroom experience. It’s not like every capital murder case gets an OJ Simpson dream team to defend them along with the financial resources to obtain expert testimony.
Check this out. This is the documentary that changed my mind on the death penalty.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I don’t know what kind of statistics you would want to to see on this subject. Do you feel that it is acceptable to execute an innocent person every now and then so long as you get to execute guilty ones as well? If so what would you consider an acceptable ratio of guilty to innocent people being executed?
[/quote]
Sadly, I do. And the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Do you feel that it is acceptable to incarcerate an innocent person every now and then so long as you get to incarcerate guilty ones as well?
If so then what is the difference between incarceration and execution? As far as I am concerned 20 years in a max security prison is more cruel to an innocent person than execution. And a person on death row has far more opportunity to prove their innocence.
Ideally prisons would be nice places simply isolated from society. However, nobody (including myself) wants to pay for 999 murderers to watch cable tv and surf the net all day so that the 1 innocent person incarcerated lives an ok life; I struggle enough to look after my own family. If prisons were reasonable dwelling places then I might change my mind about the death penalty.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I don’t think we will be tempted to enact similar measures against lesser criminals; if anything there is social pressure to remove the death penalty all together.
You need to keep the lessor crims away from the real fuckups. Executing the real fuckups certainly helps.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
As for the cost of housing vs executing a criminal, I’ve provided a link to a non-partisan website called deathpenaltyinfo.com.
[/quote]
While they might be non-partisan the report is misleading. The extra costs come from extra appeals.
Basically the extra cost is to…get this…to ensure that the criminal is guilty because they don’t want to put an innocent man to death. So the death penalty is forcing the state to do a more thorough and better investigation.
As an innocent person then you are much better off on deathrow than life without parole. That sort of destroys the argument against the death penalty from the “innocent being executed” angle.[/quote]
The extra costs do indeed come from the appeals process, but what’s misleading about that? It’s not a hidden cost; it’s a cost that exists and always will. Deathrow inmates will always appeal and unless each state overhauls their entire legal system in order to speed the appeals process up, it will always be this way.
The appeals do not occur to make sure the man is truly guilty before he is executed; they occur because the criminal has the legal right to appeal and this right is frequently invoked in order to delay death. Many 100% guilty criminals are successful at this.
Look at New Jersey for instance. 253 million spent on appeals since 1983, 197 death penalty trials, 60 convictions, 50 of which were reversed upon appeal (not found innocent but simply having the death penalty removed) and 10 executions left, none of which have actually occurred yet. ANy criminal who may actually be innocent can continue to appeal and w/o the possibility of being executed an innocent man has a better chance of living.
No inmate not on deathrow who was innocent has ever been executed by the state, whereas there have been innocent men on deathrow who have been executed. So one still has a better chance of survival if they are not on deathrow.
[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]
Silly me, I thought it was to enforce established puishments for breaking the law . . .[/quote]
This is the new america, if you fit into some kind of special interest group, the laws don’t apply to you.
And the death penaly is taking life to keep others from being killed, raped, molested by that person, not necessarily to deter anything. But if it also does that bonus.
So how about this, you all want to keep these people alive, you pay for it, you live with them if released. You let them in the parks with your children.
I believe in the death penalty, I believe in self defense and defending others.
And expensive please, shoot them in the head insinerate the bodies. Much cheaper then avg cost of housing in maximum security for a month forget a year.
And to those who make claims about ones who are found innocent, I would like to see the stats vs those who get to commit 2nd and 3rd similar offenses.
It is like all of these damn programs, you want them, then you pay for them, don’t use my money.
It sickens me to think my tax money goes to providing life to rapist murders and child molesters.
[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. [/quote]
What? you think that there would be a lesening of court costs simply because they are punished with life imprisonment rather than the death penalty? What, are they going to just quietly accept the one punishment while they would vigorously defend themselves from the other? Are you serious? The same person convicted of the crime will appeal his punishment regardless of the punishment itself - it will not lessen the costs at all! That is pure unadulterated nonsense!
With the death penalty option there (speaking in purely financial terminology since this was your argument) the chance remains that the lifetime costs can be shortened by the actual carrying out of his senetence - thus reducing the lifetime accrued expenses. In cost terminology alone, the death penalty is a money saver . . . .
[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]
nope, sorry - don’t accept the argument - it is based in isolation. If our society prevented EVERY preventable innocent death in this country, then that argument would have some validity, but we allow thousands to die every year in preventable deaths.
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]
no, I’ll disagree with you here too. The death penalty is not intended to be a deterrent, it is not intended to be a “defense” of society". It is the establishment of the value of life.
If I robbed you of $48 and broke your arm and terrorized your girlfriend - i would be punished in equitable terms - restore your $48, pay your medical expenses and any punitive (punishing) charges the court deemed appropriate for my crime - the values are equal and easily understood. The judge is not going to say that your $5,000 in medical expenses is actually only worth the $48 dollars I stole from you . . .
Lets extrapolate - If I killed you for your money, say $48, and the judges sentences me to jail for 40 years, then we as a society accept that I can kill you for $48 and 40 years spent in prison. We have just valued your life at $48 and 40 years in prison. If, on the other hand, we say no, a human life is worth more than that - a human life is more valuable than that - we would utilize the death penalty to take the most valuable thing from the killer, me, that we could - in this case we value nothing above human life - so my life must be taken from me to restore the value of all life.
This is the punishment that fits the crime - the most valuable thing I have is taken from me to punish me for taking the most valuable thing you had from you. all else is secondary.
The death penalty affirms the value of life! anything less, lowers it.
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]
no, I’ll disagree with you here too. The death penalty is not intended to be a deterrent, it is not intended to be a “defense” of society". It is the establishment of the value of life.
If I robbed you of $48 and broke your arm and terrorized your girlfriend - i would be punished in equitable terms - restore your $48, pay your medical expenses and any punitive (punishing) charges the court deemed appropriate for my crime - the values are equal and easily understood. The judge is not going to say that your $5,000 in medical expenses is actually only worth the $48 dollars I stole from you . . .
Lets extrapolate - If I killed you for your money, say $48, and the judges sentences me to jail for 40 years, then we as a society accept that I can kill you for $48 and 40 years spent in prison. We have just valued your life at $48 and 40 years in prison. If, on the other hand, we say no, a human life is worth more than that - a human life is more valuable than that - we would utilize the death penalty to take the most valuable thing from the killer, me, that we could - in this case we value nothing above human life - so my life must be taken from me to restore the value of all life.
This is the punishment that fits the crime - the most valuable thing I have is taken from me to punish me for taking the most valuable thing you had from you. all else is secondary.
The death penalty affirms the value of life! anything less, lowers it.[/quote]
Very VERY good. nothing to add.
[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]
nope, sorry - don’t accept the argument - it is based in isolation. If our society prevented EVERY preventable innocent death in this country, then that argument would have some validity, but we allow thousands to die every year in preventable deaths. [/quote]
He makes a perfectly fine point and your rebuttal doesn’t make any sense. The fact that our society doesn’t prevent every preventable death has nothing to do with anything. At the end of the day, an innocent person will DIE because the State deemed it so. To get rid of that possibility we keep them locked up for life, no parole. If, at a later date, we find out that the person is innocent, we release them and give them a bunch of money for screwing up their life.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
nope, sorry - don’t accept the argument - it is based in isolation. If our society prevented EVERY preventable innocent death in this country, then that argument would have some validity, but we allow thousands to die every year in preventable deaths. [/quote]
He makes a perfectly fine point and your rebuttal doesn’t make any sense. The fact that our society doesn’t prevent every preventable death has nothing to do with anything. At the end of the day, an innocent person will DIE because the State deemed it so. To get rid of that possibility we keep them locked up for life, no parole. If, at a later date, we find out that the person is innocent, we release them and give them a bunch of money for screwing up their life. [/quote]
No, his point was that the state started a process that will result in the death of an innocent individual. This is no different that the state starting a process whereby an individual can get licensed to operate a vehicle and then they cause a vehicular homicide - it starts with a desire on the part of the individual, the intervention by the state, the imposition of a standard and the awareness of the potential outcome (no death penalty is a certain fact, BTW) and then the non-prevention of that outcome.
If the standard is to prevent all innocent loss of life by the action/inaction of the state and ONE LIFE is ONE TOO MANY, there is no rationale ground for not imposing that same standard on every facet of state activity. That’s why the argument is weak/fallacious on its face. It is not possible for the state to engage in any activity if the standard is that not ONE single life can be lost - if that’s the standard, no state anywhere would be able to start ay chain of events, because it cannot prevent the potential for a death to result.
There are plenty of good arguments out there against the death penalty, but this one is not one.
This is an arguement for refinement of the process, improvement of the justice system, standards for attorneys and judges - a host of different component arguments - but not for this issue.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If the standard is to prevent all innocent loss of life by the action/inaction of the state and ONE LIFE is ONE TOO MANY, there is no rationale ground for not imposing that same standard on every facet of state activity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]
Indeed. Societal paralysis is the final end of this line of thinking, Some may argue that execution is a designed action and the other examples unintended consequences of otherwise necessary civic functions. While true on it’s face the result is the same and assuming honest and impartial jurisprudence on the part of the state, the absolutely unavoidable sometime error in any human institution is compensated for by the restraining influence of the higher view of life that accompanies it. Of course that will only be true on a systemic basis and when it is clearly understood that that and not revenge for instance is the motivation.
In other words, the what to some may appear counterintuitive high morality of requiring a life for taking one works it’s own life preserving influence even if not directly deterrent in nature.
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]
no, I’ll disagree with you here too. The death penalty is not intended to be a deterrent, it is not intended to be a “defense” of society". It is the establishment of the value of life.
If I robbed you of $48 and broke your arm and terrorized your girlfriend - i would be punished in equitable terms - restore your $48, pay your medical expenses and any punitive (punishing) charges the court deemed appropriate for my crime - the values are equal and easily understood. The judge is not going to say that your $5,000 in medical expenses is actually only worth the $48 dollars I stole from you . . .
Lets extrapolate - If I killed you for your money, say $48, and the judges sentences me to jail for 40 years, then we as a society accept that I can kill you for $48 and 40 years spent in prison. We have just valued your life at $48 and 40 years in prison. If, on the other hand, we say no, a human life is worth more than that - a human life is more valuable than that - we would utilize the death penalty to take the most valuable thing from the killer, me, that we could - in this case we value nothing above human life - so my life must be taken from me to restore the value of all life.
This is the punishment that fits the crime - the most valuable thing I have is taken from me to punish me for taking the most valuable thing you had from you. all else is secondary.
The death penalty affirms the value of life! anything less, lowers it.[/quote]
So do you agree with the idea that anyone who takes another life should have their life taken?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So do you agree with the idea that anyone who takes another life should have their life taken?[/quote]
With malicious unlawful intent.
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]
no, I’ll disagree with you here too. The death penalty is not intended to be a deterrent, it is not intended to be a “defense” of society". It is the establishment of the value of life.
[/quote]
So now the State knows the value of people’s lives?
About the 48 dollars read below, if you stole that unless they found the property on you they would just send you to jail for robbery and assault and battery. I would have to go to civil court to get my money and punitive damages restored.
Most valuable thing is your life, but it means shit to me or my family if it is no longer there. That is like saying because you stole my car we are going to blow up your car.
The idea of compensation is okay, not every time does someone feel the compensation is worth it, however by killing you the value of life is not restored it is diminished because we just killed you. And is more so vengeance than compensation.
Killing you is still vengeance if it affects anyone, and how can they value what I and you deem equal. My life is actually not the most important thing to me, it’s secondary so how would the state know that and make the compensation equal? So, if my life is actually of secondary value to something else what are they going to make it equal. Say your wife is secondary to your life, so since my life is equal to your value of your wife they should take her life? Doesn’t make sense, you can’t put a value of life, if you want punishment and deterrent, and compensation, monetary is about as close as you are going to get otherwise you are just killing more people.
[quote]
The death penalty affirms the value of life! anything less, lowers it.[/quote]
Not really, I’ve been robbed before and my property was never returned to me, not one penny of it, but they asked me to testify in court and the case was aptly named State vs. Sanders, which I know that if they did find my property it would have been returned but they never made him pay in the criminal court case. They would have gone through with the case even if I was not there.
However, I took the guy to civil court and the man had to pay for my property there which the case was named Brother Chris vs. Sanders.
They say the judicial system is a deterrent, well it might be but theoretically that is not the purpose of the legal system when it comes to crimes. It is for the defense of the society, they can say what they want, but that is the reason it is how it is. “Self-Defense” because if want compensation, 40 years of a man being unproductive is not worth my life, neither is killing him. I would rather him pay 10 million dollars to my family than to be put to death.
[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. [/quote]
What? you think that there would be a lesening of court costs simply because they are punished with life imprisonment rather than the death penalty? What, are they going to just quietly accept the one punishment while they would vigorously defend themselves from the other? Are you serious? The same person convicted of the crime will appeal his punishment regardless of the punishment itself - it will not lessen the costs at all! That is pure unadulterated nonsense!
With the death penalty option there (speaking in purely financial terminology since this was your argument) the chance remains that the lifetime costs can be shortened by the actual carrying out of his senetence - thus reducing the lifetime accrued expenses. In cost terminology alone, the death penalty is a money saver . . . .[/quote]
If you examine the contents of the report I linked earlier, you’ll see that there is overwhelming evidence indicating that deathrow trials/appeals cost state, federal and county govts significantly more than non-death penalty cases.
Sure it’s possible that a lifetime prisoner could rack up more costs in appeals than a deathrow inmate, and in theory this sounds reasonable. But the reality of the situation is that deathrow inmates cost much more than non-deathrow inmates, period. Why this is so is immaterial; the fact remains that the death penalty is a more expensive form of punishment than lifetime imprisonment, it is dubious as to whether or not it is a deterrent, and violent criminals can and are removed permanently from society even w/o the death penalty. I don’t think there would be a lessening of court costs w/o the death penalty, I know so.