# Why haven't we repealed the death penality yet?



## CrazyLee (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm starting to think the USA is just a nation of bloodthirsty savages who enjoy murdering others, like killing is some sort of justice of some kind.

I'm referring to the case of Troy Davis, who is being executed today despite a massive campaign to spare him (and since the execution was supposed to be at 7p, he should have been dead 17 minutes by now). I've seen people kill more people and get off with life, but because he supposedly killed a cop, HE MUST DIE. Despite the evidence sounding shaky, at best.

I'm surprised Obama doesn't pardon him. He can do that, and they're both black, so he should help a brotha out. :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

This belongs in "Off Topic", not in "The Den".  Or better yet, in "Rants And Raves"...


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 21, 2011)

I hit the wrong forum then, I meant to put it in Off Topic.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Sep 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> I'm starting to think the USA is just a nation of bloodthirsty savages who enjoy murdering others, like killing is some sort of justice of some kind.  I'm referring to the case of Troy Davis, who is being executed today despite a massive campaign to spare him (and since the execution was supposed to be at 7p, he should have been dead 17 minutes by now). I've seen people kill more people and get off with life, but because he supposedly killed a cop, HE MUST DIE. Despite the evidence sounding shaky, at best.  I'm surprised Obama doesn't pardon him. He can do that, and they're both black, so he should help a brotha out. :V


   Because we don't want the death penalty to end- the best way to ensure that people fear and respect our judicial system is with legalized human sacrifice.  Oh, and in case you're wondering, I think it's safe to say Obama is "passing" rather than black. The first black President has enacted the same kind of legislation that would make him indistinguishable from any white politician. I do wonder if his light skin, due to his biracial family might have something to do with the fact that we elected him.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 21, 2011)

Unconfirmed, but I'm hearing Troy Davis has been granted a _delay_ (but not a stay) of execution.  Looking for a source.

Edit: The Guardian has it.  It's not over yet folks.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 21, 2011)

He deserves worse IMHO, and just because he has lots of supporters doesn't mean he is innocent or his death sentence should be overturned.


----------



## Otto042 (Sep 21, 2011)

wait... why haven't we repealed the death penalty?  you mean like... why hasn't the right wing on this country let us?  did you see any news about the last Republican primary debate?  they cheered at the fact texas executed a national record number of people under their current governor.  like... not just cheered.  It was the biggest applause, almost a standing ovation, of the entire debate.  they LOVE to kill convicted criminals.  They love to kill people.


----------



## xcliber (Sep 21, 2011)

Because Texas. 

I support the death penalty, but only in the most severe circumstances.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 21, 2011)

Otto042 said:


> wait... why haven't we repealed the death penalty?  you mean like... why hasn't the right wing on this country let us?  did you see any news about the last Republican primary debate?  they cheered at the fact texas executed a national record number of people under their current governor.  like... not just cheered.  It was the biggest applause, almost a standing ovation, of the entire debate.  they LOVE to kill convicted criminals.  They love to kill people.


This is why I dislike most republicans, seriously I wouldn't doubt for a second some of them get a hardon everytime they hear a convict gets executed.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Sep 21, 2011)

Nothing is wrong with the concept of a death penalty, it's just the states have poor practice of it. As mentioned, the guy killed one person and got executed while people with multiple counts can go on with a life sentence. The only logic behind that is that death is a permanent release while life in prison is a life of boredom and torture.

It's a good thing on paper, but the judicial system sucks.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 21, 2011)

Back in March, my cousin murdered his ex-wife.  (I think it was one of those "crimes of passion" you always hear about, but I digress.)  Regardless of what the events were leading up to him pulling that trigger, the fact remains that he killed someone and deserves to pay the price.  I'm saying this about my own cousin.  I know, I'm an evil bitch.

I, for one, support the death penalty.  Why we're wasting money and prison space keeping murderers alive is beyond me.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 21, 2011)

Fun fact of the day: In 2007 Texas executed more people per capita than China.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Sep 21, 2011)

Oh look, yet another thread that mixes morals and politics. This should be fun. :V

How long before it devolves into "IT'S WRONG TO KILL PEOPLE" VS "LIFE IN PRISON JUST WASTES MONEY" or some such equivalent argument? That is what this thread is really about, right?

Edit: Ooooooh! It already started! Yay!


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 21, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I, for one, support the death penalty.  Why we're wasting money and prison space keeping murderers alive is beyond me.


Because it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison, due to all the appeals and stuff.
Because there's always a chance the person was actually innocent. In the case of your cousin, maybe not, but in many cases there is doubt.
Because, does two wrongs make a right? Will killing people bring back the dead? Will your cousin's ex-wife get "justice" from his death? Will she come back to life? Will everything be okay? Will the pain go away? *No!*
Does killing another human being make everything better again?


----------



## Rasly (Sep 21, 2011)

DevistatedDrone said:


> Nothing is wrong with the concept of a death penalty...


 It is wrong as long as the judicial system is not perfect and it is not even close to be perfect, that is why this concept  is depreciated in other advanced countries.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 21, 2011)

We need population control anyway.  I supposed I'm gonna get flamed to death for being so cold-hearted and having different, immoral opinions.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Sep 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Because it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison, due to all the appeals and stuff.


Sources? Figures? What are you basing this on? How much does an appeal cost compared to providing facilities, food, shelter, etc for one person for a life sentence?


> Because there's always a chance the person was actually innocent. In the case of your cousin, maybe not, but in many cases there is doubt.


Except that's not always the case, and that's what the death penalty is for. In theory, there is supposed to be evidence beyond doubt that the person in question is guilty. Of course the system is far from perfect so I understand what your point here is, but more often than not, it's the case that the person really does deserve death.


> Because, does two wrongs make a right? Will killing people bring back the dead? Will your cousin's ex-wife get "justice" from his death? Will she come back to life? Will everything be okay? Will the pain go away? *No!*


I think that you're missing the point of a death penalty. The point isn't to make things are hunky dory (at least as far as I'm aware), the point is to provide justice in a meaningful way. Is it fair that this asshole retains his right to live when he has taken that right from someone else? Again, I'm not saying that the system is perfect, but can you at least look beyond your point just a touch instead of assuming that everyone who supports the death penalty for some bullshit necromancy ritual?


> Does killing another human being make everything better again?


Didn't you just ask this question?


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 21, 2011)

Didn't we just have this thread a few weeks ago?

Edit: Yes. bonus points for both threads containing "bloodthirsty" in OP/thread title.

Edit edit: Also death penality sounds like sort of perverted Mortal Kombat. *PENALITY!*


----------



## Dj_whoohoo (Sep 21, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> We need population control anyway.  I supposed I'm gonna get flamed to death for being so cold-hearted and having different, immoral opinions.


It also saves money. But kinda smart if you think about it. Like guy "A" killed 16 people and raped like 3 10 yr olds and stab people for fun. He would suffer in prison forever until he gets killed or dies of old age, he'll be in jail 23hrs a day for the rest of his life. Guy "B" was a petty thug , he got caught for murder (only one) so he goes to trial. 
It be easier just to end him then and there. But for guy "A" since he's is much worser he would in his mind prefer death then time behind the bars. So you punish him that way instead of a swift death. But hey that my reason


----------



## Xipoid (Sep 21, 2011)

I don't support the death penalty. Even in the face of 100% certainty of guilt and/or if _I_ was the victim and was somehow able to arbitrate from the beyond, I wouldn't support it. To take someone's life or cause them harm is because one is able to dehumanize them, which is directly related to a "us v. them" mentality which is something I utterly despise.


I wish I could tell you why it hasn't been repealed. My guess is it is because there is a bankruptcy of empathy in this country, but what do I know?


----------



## Tycho (Sep 21, 2011)

The death penalty persists for the same reason Roman peasants visited the Colosseum.  Slaking the thirst left by dissatisfaction with life and society.  With blood.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 21, 2011)

Why haven't we repealed the death penalty yet?

Answer: Because, sometimes, it is needed. Kinda like war, sometimes, its necessary.

The death penalty should be, employed only with the most evil of crimes.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Sep 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why haven't we repealed the death penalty yet?
> 
> Answer: Because, sometimes, it is needed. Kinda like war, sometimes, its necessary.
> 
> The death penalty should be, employed only with the most evil of crimes.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the Ten Commandments of your religion "Thou shalt not kill" ? How can you support this without being a hypocrite?


----------



## Lunar (Sep 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Last time I checked, bullets are pretty cheap.


Which people don't seem to understand... lethal injection, what fuckery is this?


----------



## Xeno (Sep 21, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Which people don't seem to understand... lethal injection, what fuckery is this?


Don't we use the lethal injection instead of blowing somebodys brains out because it's more humane or something like that?


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Sep 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> No. What is fuckery, is that they sterilize the lethal injection needle.
> Herpa derp, don't want to give them AIDS, since they'll be dead within ten minutes.



They sterilize the needle so that just in case they're called with a stay or delay at the last minute, before the switch is thrown, this guy doesn't have to live with some horrible disease the rest of his life - however short it may be. Which also becomes a legality issue, because the prisoner would then be able to sue the prison system for giving them said horrible disease from not using a properly cleaned needle.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Sep 21, 2011)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the Ten Commandments of your religion "Thou shalt not kill" ? How can you support this without being a hypocrite?


Right. He shouldn't kill people, but the bible doesn't say anything about other people killing for him :V



Mike the fox said:


> Don't we use the lethal injection instead of  blowing somebodys brains out because it's more humane or something like  that?


We used to think that lethal injection was more humane, but now we realize that it's just a more clean way to kill someone/the way to kill without much of a cleanup.

A true, merciful death is a quick, blind-folded death which is was a firing squad offers. Lethal injections are a lot more extensive than people may think. An execution consists of 2 or 3 injections. If I'm not mistaken, the order is one to paralyze and the other is to kill. It has been found out that the paralysis in some cases had the recipient fully conscious so they felt the second injection slowly kill them. From what I've been told, it's supposed to be like a painful drowning sensation, followed by death.

The facts I am stating are from years ago, so I don't know if much has changed form then. I'm not even sure if this is for all cases or just certain cases.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 21, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> We need population control anyway.  I supposed I'm gonna get flamed to death for being so cold-hearted and having different, immoral opinions.


I'm going to take issue with that because it's illogical, not because it's different/immoral. People spending life in prison aren't going to be making any babies until we've developed a way to get men pregnant or women to produce sperm. (Transpeople aside.) 

Also the couple dozen to couple hundred people we kill in a year is seriously a drop in the ocean.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Sep 21, 2011)

DevistatedDrone said:


> Right. He shouldn't kill people, but the bible doesn't say anything about other people killing for him :V



Right. I forgot that it's about adhering more to the letter than the spirit. :V


----------



## Calemeyr (Sep 21, 2011)

Why can't we use them as a source of labor? Instead of killing the serial killer, make him work on a highway in Alaska. In winter.

Life in prison just saps the money from better places, like research grants and art enowments. Make'm work!


----------



## Blutide (Sep 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> I'm starting to think the USA is just a nation of bloodthirsty savages who enjoy murdering others, like killing is some sort of justice of some kind.
> 
> I'm referring to the case of Troy Davis, who is being executed today despite a massive campaign to spare him (and since the execution was supposed to be at 7p, he should have been dead 17 minutes by now). I've seen people kill more people and get off with life, but because he supposedly killed a cop, HE MUST DIE. Despite the evidence sounding shaky, at best.
> 
> I'm surprised Obama doesn't pardon him. He can do that, and they're both black, so he should help a brotha out. :V




Some people just deserve to die.

~America is a war nation, yeah we are bloodthirsty half the time.



> also the game.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Sep 21, 2011)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the Ten Commandments of your religion "Thou shalt not kill" ? How can you support this without being a hypocrite?



Dude, logic and The Bible just don't mix. :V


----------



## Tycho (Sep 21, 2011)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Why can't we use them as a source of labor? Instead of killing the serial killer, make him work on a highway in Alaska. In winter.
> 
> Life in prison just saps the money from better places, like research grants and art enowments. Make'm work!



And let private industry use them as cheap indentured labor to supplant normal hard-working folks at their jobs? Yeah, that's a great idea.  Watch the prison population mysteriously increase and the unemployment rate increase with it (until someone decides to make indentured servitude via prison count as "employment").




Stratto the Hawk said:


> Dude, logic and The Bible just don't mix. :V



It's not even apples to oranges.  It's apples to Honda Civics.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 21, 2011)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> it's the case that the person really does deserve death.


Yes, but who is to say they "Deserve" death? You? The system? What gives them the right to say someone deserves to die on shoddy evidence?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why haven't we repealed the death penalty yet?
> 
> Answer: Because, sometimes, it is needed. Kinda like war, sometimes, its necessary.
> 
> The death penalty should be, employed only with the most evil of crimes.


I'm trying to find one instance in the Bible where Jesus killed someone or said that killing was just. Just one. Wait, can't find any. Funny, for those who say they try to become more like Jesus.


----------



## Rasly (Sep 21, 2011)

I dont get how people can risk executing an innocent just to punish some criminal.


----------



## Kranda (Sep 21, 2011)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Right. I forgot that it's about adhering more to the letter than the spirit. :V



I've asked my Jewish friends and it says the literal translation is thou shalt not murder. That's why massacres decreed by god and accidents don't count.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Answer: Because, sometimes, it is needed. Kinda like war, sometimes, its necessary.


 
"Necessary".  Give a single instance where the death penalty accomplished something that life in prison without parole could not (aside from the obvious "durr it killed someone").


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 21, 2011)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of  the Ten Commandments of your religion "Thou shalt not kill" ? How can  you support this without being a hypocrite?



_â€œWhoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made manâ€_ (Genesis 9:6).

In the parable of the wedding feast, Jesus spoke approvingly of the  action of the king (who clearly represented God Himself) when he _"sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned up their cities."_ (Matt 22:7).

In the parable of the pounds, Christ pronounced His judgement on those who had rebelled against their king (Luke 19:27): "_But these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence".

_In Luke 20:14-16, He concluded the parable of the wicked tenants: 
_"What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them who killed his  son? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to other_.

Now, for the rest of the answer, see below.




DevistatedDrone said:


> Right. He shouldn't kill people, but the  bible doesn't say anything about other people killing for him :V





Stratto the Hawk said:


> Dude, logic and The Bible just don't mix. :V



First  of all, the Bible does not say that it is forbidden to kill. The Bible  says that it is forbidden to murder. Big difference. If we couldn't  kill, then that means every WWII vet, Korean war vet, every soldier is a  murderer and should be tried as a murderer. Every police officer who has killed in the line of duty is a murderer and should be tried as one. Every self defense case is murder and the person should be tried as a murderer.

Your assumption is invalid. Why?

Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of  life. Therefore, in the issue of taking life we must determine whether  or not is lawful or not.

Finally, it is not a a self-contradiction for a person to condemn murder but believe in the death penalty.



Lobar said:


> "Necessary".  Give a single instance where the  death penalty accomplished something that life in prison without parole  could not (aside from the obvious "durr it killed someone").



Well, firstly, its used as an example. "If you commit heinous crimes, you could be put to death". Deterrent. 

Secondly, have you not known that the prison system is already overcrowded? How is adding to the number helping that problem?

If you hold to the anti death penalty position. Thats fine. I have no problem with that. I personally disagree and think sometimes, it is necessary.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 21, 2011)

Rasly said:


> I dont get how people can risk executing an innocent just to punish some criminal.


Which is why implementation is important. We need to be fairly certain that a criminal has done something wrong before giving them the slip. 

As for a plausible reason why the death penalty exists, imagine if there's this criminal who's killed hundreds of people, somebody who's obviously a maniacal sociopath who is more than likely to repeat the same deeds should he be released. For the sake of the example, say that the evidence against the criminal is overwhelming. It costs money to keep him in jail, and it's way to dangerous to let him go and kill more innocent people. What do you do with them then? Some people just cannot be allowed to continue their existence because of the danger they represent to others.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Well, firstly, its used as an example. "If you commit heinous crimes, you could be put to death". Deterrent.
> 
> Secondly, have you not known that the prison system is already overcrowded? How is adding to the number helping that problem?


 
There's no real evidence that the death penalty or even tougher sentencing laws in general have had any deterrent effect on crime.  The ratio of executions to inmates is insigificantly low and the existence of the death penalty correlates with a culture of harsher sentencing in the first place, increasing overcrowding.

If either of these are things you actually care about changing, you should be out fighting oversentencing and prison time for non-violent drug offenses.  Instead you want the death penalty for purely emotional reasons.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Sep 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Yes, but who is to say they "Deserve" death? You? The system? What gives them the right to say someone deserves to die on shoddy evidence?



Go back and re-read my post. I covered evidence and said that people deserve death if you can prove that they did it. Click on the link I provided, it covers a case where the only evidence given is that they dress different and are the kind that the people believe are the type to perform witchcraft. I support their freedom because they don't deserve their punishment that they are still receiving. I agree that the system is far from perfect, but there are some sick fucks out there that deserve death. I feel that you forfeit your right to life once you deny someone else their right to theirs. Don't pick around this post. Either make valid points or GTFO.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 21, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> He deserves worse IMHO, and just because he has lots of supporters doesn't mean he is innocent or his death sentence should be overturned.



The jurors have recanted with statements pleading for him to have another trial. Also, the witnesses stories haven't been the greatest.

I am absolutely for the death penalty, HOWEVER, if there is room for reasonable doubt in cases such as this, it is IMPERATIVE that he at least gets a retrial. He was denied that and I find that wrong.



Commie Bat said:


> No. What is fuckery, is that they sterilize the lethal injection needle.
> Herpa derp, don't want to give them AIDS, since they'll be dead within ten minutes.



I don't think they sterilize for the inmate but rather the person giving it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Because it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison, due to all the appeals and stuff.
> Because there's always a chance the person was actually innocent. In the case of your cousin, maybe not, *but in many cases there is doubt*.
> Because, does two wrongs make a right? Will killing people bring back the dead? Will your cousin's ex-wife get "justice" from his death? Will she come back to life? Will everything be okay? Will the pain go away? *No!*
> Does killing another human being make everything better again?



If there is doubt, then the accused should go free, not suffer either execution or life in prison.  Remember, "innocent until proven guilty"... if there is any reasonable doubt, then they need to be released.




CrazyLee said:


> Yes, but who is to say they "Deserve" death? You? The system? *What gives them the right to say someone deserves to die on shoddy evidence?*



If the evidence is shoddy, then the accused must go free.




Kranda said:


> I've asked my Jewish friends and it says the literal translation is thou shalt not murder. *That's why massacres decreed by god and accidents don't count.*



God created you, so he has the right to claim your soul, to take back the physical life he gave you.  He also has the right to charge us with punishing those who sin, by requiring the sinner's execution.  After all, life is eternal, only the body dies.  Murder is taking a life without just cause.  God even made clear those who kill accidentally, without intent, have an out.  That they should not be required to give up their lives.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Well I feel lethal injection is quite unusual, thus in my opinion it violated the Eighth Amendment.
> 
> Bullets can be just as humane. Especially when people can continue to live minutes after the injection.


Like in the book "Of Mice and Men".  If you wanna make killing with a bullet more humane, have them look at a far-off paradise while imagining rabbits, then shoot them in the back of the head.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Instead you want the death penalty for purely emotional reasons.



I want the death penatly for those who are to dangerous to even keep in the prison system. I think its foolish to think there are not people that are that much of a danger to society and even to those in the prison system.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I want the death penatly for those who are to dangerous to even keep in the prison system. I think its foolish to think there are not people that are that much of a danger to society *and even to those in the prison system*.



Indeed:

http://www.slate.com/id/2089095/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2724_134/ai_n15380394/

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2048040&page=1


----------



## Spatel (Sep 21, 2011)

It's funny that people defending the death penalty point to overcrowded prisons... when the vast, vast majority of prison inmates are not on death row, and a large number of them are nonviolent drug offenders that have no business being in prison. We could easily *EASILY* imprison the serial killers if we ended the war on drugs and started treating drug addiction like the disease it is instead of a crime.

We look back on the times when people with tuberculosis were shipped to penal colonies and shudder, but our times are no different. We still punish some people who have no intent to harm others for their illnesses.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Sep 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> This is why I dislike most republicans, seriously I wouldn't doubt for a second some of them get a hardon everytime they hear a convict gets executed.



Or a Muslim gathering gets protested against.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 21, 2011)

Spatel said:


> It's funny that people defending the death penalty point to overcrowded prisons... when the vast, vast majority of prison inmates are not on death row, and a large number of them are nonviolent drug offenders that have no business being in prison. We could easily *EASILY* imprison the serial killers if we ended the war on drugs and started treating drug addiction like the disease it is instead of a crime.
> 
> We look back on the times when people with tuberculosis were shipped to penal colonies and shudder, but our times are no different. We still punish some people who have no intent to harm others for their illnesses.



Well I'm not one of those. I'm for the war on drugs to end. I think it's pointless to give them such a hefty sentence while those of more serious offenses get off.

I mean, really, some meth addict is more likely to blow himself up anyway. Let them do their drugs :V


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

Life in prison.


ARE TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Fay V (Sep 22, 2011)

I was under the impression that part of the reason we turned to lethal injection was part "it's more humane" and also to take the executioners into consideration. I believe that the computer flips the switch now. 
I do know with the firing squad the marksmen would get fucked up. When forced to have to kill someone. That's why some guns were blanks, so the they could say "maybe mine was blank" but really after a few executions that had to really gnaw at the mind. So...there's part of it. Sure it was their job, but there's moral implications to force someone to kill for their job.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 22, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I was under the impression that part of the reason we turned to lethal injection was part "it's more humane" and also to take the executioners into consideration.



The drug cocktail traditionally used for US lethal injections is designed to paralyze the victim before it kills them. This was desired so the execution didn't appear "messy". When it comes to euthanizing animals this practice is actually banned for being cruel and inhumane, as it is impossible to tell whether the anesthetics have been administered properly. The lethal injection may take the executioners into consideration but humane practices are certainly not part of it.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> It's five to seven people with one loaded shell, to keep them emotionally calm.  Those same moral implications would apply to military service as well then.  Even more so if you are on the front, since killing is kind of your job, especially infantry wise.
> 
> Though wouldn't injection frail ends with the eight amendment rights?  There are large portions of people who were completely aware during the process, and could even feel their body shutting off.


Human beings are interesting with percentages. I understand the idea behind the blanks, but at the same time while that works a handful of times, when you have high execution rates the percentages start to skew until eventually, statistically you were that 1 in five. 

As for 8th amendment. I think you could say the same for any method of killing. With the firing squad something might happen, the bullet hits the brain oddly and for some reason death is not instantaneous. I don't think there is a method that is quick, painless, and 100% accurate every single time. 

As for soldiers. Yes I think those moral implications exist there too. I think people understand that and there's a push towards robotics in the military. So those moral implications are seen in both areas and I think people react the same way. "is it okay to force someone to do a job if a machine can do it?"



Onnes said:


> The drug cocktail traditionally used for US lethal injections is designed to paralyze the victim before it kills them. This was desired so the execution didn't appear "messy". When it comes to euthanizing animals this practice is actually banned for being cruel and inhumane, as it is impossible to tell whether the anesthetics have been administered properly. The lethal injection may take the executioners into consideration but humane practices are certainly not part of it.


That's fair enough. I'm not trying to argue one over the other. I just want to point out why firing squad is unfavorable in terms of those that have to do the job.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

What's the difference?  It kills them in the end.  For the purpose of not having to clean up a bloody, brain-tissue-y mess afterwards, I'd support using lethal injection.  Or just build a room to blow their head to pieces and clean it occasionally.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2011)

I support the death penalty in principle, but not in practice.  In principle, I totally agree that those who murder have forfeited their right to live.  That said, can we be 100% certain that a convicted murderer is guilty?  In some cases, yes.  In other cases, no.  The system of justice in the USA is to convict people based on proof of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  There's a *huge* difference between a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond any doubt whatsoever.

That difference is why capital cases go through years, in some cases decades, between the initial conviction and when the convicted criminal is put to death.  That costs millions of dollars... often *far* more than the cost of incarcerating that person for the rest of their natural life.  Even then, there are some cases where we can't be 100% certain that the convicted criminal is truly guilty.  Any conviction, even one based solely on circumstantial evidence, means that the burden of proof on every appeal is shifted from the prosecution to the defense.  Short of the defense discovering DNA evidence or a videotape that proves that the defendant couldn't have committed the crime, the defendant is doomed.  That's true even if key witnesses against the defendant in the original trial lied on the stand and later retracted their testimony.

So even though I support the death penalty in principle, I don't support its use when the system is wasteful in the extreme and still could possibly result in an innocent person being executed.

Better just to lock them up & throw away the key (metaphorically speaking, of course.)  Life w/o possibility of parole *is *a death penalty of sorts.  They're still going to die behind bars.  It's just going to take a bit longer, and if we do wrongly convict someone of such a crime, that person has their entire life to find evidence that can prove their innocence.  No, such a system still isn't perfect.  But it's better, and cheaper, than a system that can result in the execution of even a single wrongly convicted individual.


----------



## Citrakayah (Sep 22, 2011)

I've actually been to the Huntsville Unit, where every sentenced execution in Texas has taken place. It is a very creepy and foreboding structure, right in the middle of downtown, about a block from Sam Houston State University. 

Then when touring the football fields, I noticed a LARGE cemetery across the street. Found out later that it was where all of the inmates where buried. Reminded me a lot of Arlington national cemetery, except all of the crosses only had numbers and dates.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I support the death penalty in principle, but not in practice.  In principle, I totally agree that those who murder have forfeited their right to live.  That said, can we be 100% certain that a convicted murderer is guilty?  In some cases, yes.  In other cases, no.  The system of justice in the USA is to convict people based on proof of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  There's a *huge* difference between a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond any doubt whatsoever.
> 
> That difference is why capital cases go through years, in some cases decades, between the initial conviction and when the convicted criminal is put to death.  That costs millions of dollars... often *far* more than the cost of incarcerating that person for the rest of their natural life.  Even then, there are some cases where we can't be 100% certain that the convicted criminal is truly guilty.  Any conviction, even one based solely on circumstantial evidence, means that the burden of proof on every appeal is shifted from the prosecution to the defense.  Short of the defense discovering DNA evidence or a videotape that proves that the defendant couldn't have committed the crime, the defendant is doomed.  That's true even if key witnesses against the defendant in the original trial lied on the stand and later retracted their testimony.
> 
> ...



YES.  This is a very good post in many ways.  I just wanted to emphasize how much I agree with so much of this post.




Commie Bat said:


> I don't know if you have heard this or not, but there are rigged firing mechanisms. They are anywhere between six to ten rifles that go off via electric timer. This would eliminate the one in five issue, if they were implemented into the states.
> 
> True; but you could up the calibre-hollow points, but that will cause issues as well. This will remain a debated subject because it all depends upon each person's context on morals/ cruel & unusual punishment.



Why not just use a captive bolt if you're going to use the "poke holes in them" technique?  Seriously.  Firing squad is a romanticized form of execution.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2011)

Citrakayah said:


> I've actually been to the Huntsville Unit, where every sentenced execution in Texas has taken place. It is a very creepy and foreboding structure, right in the middle of downtown, about a block from Sam Houston State University.
> 
> Then when touring the football fields, I noticed a LARGE cemetery across the street. Found out later that it was where all of the inmates where buried. Reminded me a lot of Arlington national cemetery, except all of the crosses only had numbers and dates.


Wow... creepy!



Tycho said:


> YES.  This is a very good post in many ways.  I  just wanted to emphasize how much I agree with so much of this  post.


Thanks!


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 22, 2011)

Rasly said:


> I dont get how people can risk executing an innocent just to punish some criminal.



"There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt."


----------



## DarrylWolf (Sep 22, 2011)

I don't want to do anything that would be worthy of the death penalty- I don't even want to do anything that would get me sent to jail, or even pulled over by the police. When people have an unquestionable desire to live according to the law and a fear of the police, then the concept of justice must reign heavily on us. Troy Davis, guilty or not, is an example to be brought before the masses of what happens when you fall on the wrong side of the law and his execution will inspire fear in all of us.  If Davis was innocent, then the murderer might very well admit to the killings now, knowing full well that the debt of justice has already been paid- paid by a man who should never have paid it.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I don't know if you have heard this or not, but there are rigged firing mechanisms.  They are anywhere between six to ten rifles that go off via electric timer.  This would eliminate the one in five issue, if they were implemented into the states.
> 
> True; but you could up the calibre-hollow points, but that will cause issues as well.  This will remain a debated subject because it all depends upon each person's context on morals/ cruel & unusual punishment.
> 
> We really didn't have a robotic push.  There were moral/ mental issues but thankfully we had a therapy and mental evaluation after prolonged periods of combat. Nor were we "forced" to accept a mission unless it was a dire situation.  But it does create issues for anyone currently in any army or seeking to join.



There's also the question of clean up I suppose. Even if you remove the human from the kill, you still have people that have to clean up those brains and what not. Again I just want to point out I'm not trying to advocate for anything. I don't want to defend a view for one thing or another. I just find it interesting the issues brought up with certain methods, if more than the criminal is taken into account.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Sep 22, 2011)

Or how about giving them the opportunity to commit suicide with a posthumous pardon for all crimes committed?


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> Or how about giving them the opportunity to commit suicide with a posthumous pardon for all crimes committed?


I suggested a gladiator-style method of execution, where the prisoners would have a chance to survive, and it would provide a source of sick public entertainment.  And of course convicts would line up to sign up for something like this.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 22, 2011)

It's tough to debate the merits of trying to keep someone alive in jail by abolishing the death penalty entirely when considering certain high profile individuals as members of gangs or individual serial killers and their chances of survival in a prison environment.  Take for instance Colin Hatch's murder in the UK.  Hatch was a convicted child murderer and pedophile who sexually assaulted several kids.  A crack addict inmate who somehow managed to get close to Hatch took him hostage for an hour and later killed him.

And this says nothing of what I've already mentioned in other threads about gang violence within prisons, how gang-related activities are often planned and ordered from prison to be carried out on the outside, and so on.  When an inmate proves that they are still a danger to individuals even within the confines of the prison system, they simply should not be allowed to live, in my opinion.  There are plenty of people who do try to reform when given life sentences, but there are also those who use a life sentence to justify a "what more can they do to me" mentality that can lead to dangerous situations for everyone involved.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I suggested a gladiator-style method of execution, where the prisoners would have a chance to survive, and it would provide a source of sick public entertainment.  And of course convicts would line up to sign up for something like this.


And the survivor would win a bullet to the head.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I suggested a gladiator-style method of execution, where the prisoners would have a chance to survive, and it would provide a source of sick public entertainment.  And of course convicts would line up to sign up for something like this.


That reminds me of the medieval concept of trial-by-combat.  You vs a trained warrior (often standing in for the accuser.)  If you're innocent, then surely God would give you the strength and skill to slay your much better trained opponent, right?  If you get slaughtered, oh well, guess you were guilty after all!

Yeah, I'd love a medieval theologian to give me the chapter & verse that justifies that!



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's tough to debate the merits of  trying to keep someone alive in jail by abolishing the death penalty  entirely when considering certain high profile individuals as members of  gangs or individual serial killers and their chances of survival in a  prison environment.  Take for instance Colin Hatch's murder  in the UK.  Hatch was a convicted child murderer and pedophile who  sexually assaulted several kids.  A crack addict inmate who somehow  managed to get close to Hatch took him hostage for an hour and later  killed him.
> 
> And this says nothing of what I've already mentioned in other threads  about gang violence within prisons, how gang-related activities are  often planned and ordered from prison to be carried out on the outside,  and so on.  When an inmate proves that they are still a danger to  individuals even within the confines of the prison system, they simply  should not be allowed to live, in my opinion.  There are plenty of  people who do try to reform when given life sentences, but there are  also those who use a life sentence to justify a "what more can they do  to me" mentality that can lead to dangerous situations for everyone  involved.


Death row inmates are often put in solitary confinement.  If we replaced death sentences with life w/o the possibility of parole, I would support mandatory solitary confinement for such cases.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt."


 
This sounds dangerously close to "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"



Commie Bat said:


> Well they are just overpowered nail guns, and I find that cruel.  They are used for systematic slaughter of animals, not fellow humans. You also have to get point blank which is problematic.  It may be romanticized in America, but is common form of execution in other parts of the world.  As I said the captive bolt is cruel; it all depends upon your context and I feel bullets are more humane, than spikes.


 
Bullets _are_ spikes, just free-floating ones.  Anything more than that you ascribe to them is the romanticism of gun culture.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

DevistatedDrone said:


> And the survivor would win a bullet to the head.


He wouldn't even see it coming.  Killing two birds with one stone, quite literally.  And you'd get a public spectacle out of it.  I know it sounds horrible, but people love that stuff.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> He wouldn't even see it coming.  Killing two birds with one stone, quite literally.  And you'd get a public spectacle out of it. * I know it sounds horrible, but people love that stuff.*


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> He wouldn't even see it coming.  Killing two birds with one stone, quite literally.  And you'd get a public spectacle out of it.  I know it sounds horrible, but people love that stuff.


 
lets not forget all the ad time we could sell for beer and designer underwear as they hose everything down between deaths


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Death row inmates are often put in solitary confinement.  If we replaced death sentences with life w/o the possibility of parole, I would support mandatory solitary confinement for such cases.



I don't think solitary confinement is the answer for this.

For one, you simply don't have enough spaces in a prison where you can set up solitary confinement.  Consider the amount of prisons throughout the country that are doubling, tripling, and in some case quadrupling cells due to the over crowding.  Sectioning off more areas for the large number of violent inmates in prison to have solitary cells just isn't practical use of space.

Secondly, there's the issue of time.  You can't keep someone in solitary forever, and doing so for too long brings up a bunch of ethical and moral questions as it can be related to psychological torture.

And thirdly, if said violent individual is in a gang, if the solitary confinement ends after a predetermined period then I would think that their compatriots would simply have them return to their old ways, since the gang/brotherhood is larger than the self.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

What about provoked suicide?  One of my friends was talking about locking a person in a room and playing childrens' shows theme songs, like My Little Pony, Barney, Dora the Explorer, Blues Clues, etc., and waiting for them to beg for death.  Knock them out, then when they come to, repeat the process until you get bored and hand them a gun.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

That long-term solitary confinement is plainly inhumane doesn't even register on the list?

e: this whole thread, what the fucking fuck, does it even register that these are still human beings you're discussing regardless of what they've done


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> He wouldn't even see it coming.  Killing two birds with one stone, quite literally.  And you'd get a public spectacle out of it.  I know it sounds horrible, but people love that stuff.



And afterwards we nuke the stadium to improve humanity even more.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> That long-term solitary confinement is plainly inhumane doesn't even register on the list?



Is this directed at my post?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Is this directed at my post?


 
Yes, didn't realize the thread was still moving as fast as it was when I posted.

e: and I now see I simply overlooked it in point two, sorry, it's 1am here and I should really be asleep


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> e: this whole thread, what the fucking fuck, does it even register that these are still human beings you're discussing regardless of what they've done


'Course it does.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Yes, didn't realize the thread was still moving as fast as it was when I posted.



To answer your question, I'd like to think I implied the inhumane nature of prolonged solitary confinement by bringing up the moral concerns with that practice and that it's well documented to cause psychosis and is widely considered a form of torture.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I don't think solitary confinement is the answer for this.
> 
> For one, you simply don't have enough spaces in a prison where you can set up solitary confinement.  Consider the amount of prisons throughout the country that are doubling, tripling, and in some case quadrupling cells due to the over crowding.  Sectioning off more areas for the large number of violent inmates in prison to have solitary cells just isn't practical use of space.
> 
> ...


We're talking people who would otherwise be on Death Row.  That's not thousands of people per state, but hundreds.  Even if that population triples because we're no longer executing them, a relatively small purpose-built maximum security prison could hold them all.  Keep in mind that the state would be _saving_ money by not executing these people, so the money that would otherwise go to paying for endless appeals and clogging up the courts could be funneled into building and operating this prison, and there would still be money left over at the end of the day.

These people would _*never*_ return to the general prison population.  That's the whole point.

As for "psychological torture," they'd be going through nothing more than what they're enduring today.  Prison's not a fun place, and it shouldn't be.  That doubly goes for the worst offenders.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

Telnac said:


> As for "psychological torture," they'd be going through nothing more than what they're enduring today.  Prison's not a fun place, and it shouldn't be.  That doubly goes for the worst offenders.


 
No, that sort of isolation results in irreparable psychological damage.  You don't have to actively _do_ something to someone to torture them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Telnac said:


> We're talking people who would otherwise be on Death Row.  That's not thousands of people per state, but hundreds.  Even if that population triples because we're no longer executing them, a relatively small purpose-built maximum security prison could hold them all.  Keep in mind that the state would be _saving_ money by not executing these people, so the money that would otherwise go to paying for endless appeals and clogging up the courts could be funneled into building and operating this prison, and there would still be money left over at the end of the day.



That's all well and good, but, as you recall from my original post you quoted, my major concerns here are those who aren't on death row, who walk amongst the prison population and plan the demise of other inmates and continue to engage in illegal activities within prison that can seriously endanger the lives of those in and outside of the prison walls.

And I'd like to know how you'd propose to get these kinds of facilities built and maintained.  It's hard enough trying to get people to get behind having a new prison get built in or near their town, now not only do you want to build a prison, but in the case of a state like California, Florida or Texas, you want to fill it with over 300 (in the case of California, over 700) individuals who are considered so heinous that they can be no where near the regular prison population?  That's not exactly an easy sell.



> These people would _*never*_ return to the general prison population.  That's the whole point.
> 
> As for "psychological torture," they'd be going through nothing more than what they're enduring today.  Prison's not a fun place, and it shouldn't be.  That doubly goes for the worst offenders.



If you're going off of the idea of these being individuals from Death Row, you still run into the same exact problem you had with executions if the state is specifically engaging in the torturing a potentially innocent man by keeping them on ice.  Prison may not be a nice place to be, but even people on Death Row are given better treatment than what you're suggesting.  

I'd think even the members on here who are extremely opposed to the death penalty would rather the practice continue as opposed to having inmates serve out a life sentence entirely in solitary confinement.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2011)

As far as I know, Death Row inmates are already in solitary confinement in every state in the USA.  If I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me!  Yeah, they have exercise time, they can read a book and whatnot so it's not like they're locked in a dark cell 24/7 with no interaction whatsoever.  But they don't go among the general population, ever!  I'm not proposing anything more than continuing the conditions they're being kept in... for the rest of their lives.

As for getting public support for a new prison, I'm not saying it would be easy.  But in this current era of large deficits and a desire to cut spending, I think you could make a good case for it as a cost-saving measure, especially in states like CA.  As for the "not in my town" problem, CA and TX are trivial: build it out in the desert, away from any major community.  Even in Florida if you go to the small towns, which are hurting for jobs and for people to buy underwater homes, they might embrace the prison like it's a godsend.

As for your concern about violent offenders in the general population, I think that's outside the scope of this thread.  The prison system's not perfect, and I'm not going to pretend it is.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> First  of all, the Bible does not say that it is forbidden to kill. The Bible  says that it is forbidden to murder.



Executing someone when there is so much doubt about their guilt due to mass witness recantation and police misconduct *is* murder.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> What about provoked suicide?  One of my friends was talking about locking a person in a room and playing childrens' shows theme songs, like My Little Pony, Barney, Dora the Explorer, Blues Clues, etc., and waiting for them to beg for death.  Knock them out, then when they come to, repeat the process until you get bored and *hand them a gun.*


That is the greatest idea in the history of ever :V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

Given that:

a) The decree that all murderers deserve death, and the vestment of power in the state to carry out the death penalty, comes from the mandate of the people, and
b) When multiple parties are involved in a murder, they are all guilty of murder, and not a fraction of a crime, and
c) To put an innocent man to death, while known to very likely be innocent, is in itself murder, then:

Should an innocent man be put to death under the death penalty, it is a murder, and all who support it share guilt.  By their own decree that all who murder deserve death, they themselves therefore deserve death.

Troy Davis is dead.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Given that:
> 
> a) The decree that all murderers deserve death, and the vestment of power in the state to carry out the death penalty, comes from the mandate of the people, and
> b) When multiple parties are involved in a murder, they are all guilty of murder, and not a fraction of a crime, and
> ...


I don't much care for the who deserves what speech. That's nothing more than mindless emotional bickering.

Still, this a stupid case. Wish it were a requirement to have substantial evidence before enacting a death penalty.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

DevistatedDrone said:


> That is the greatest idea in the history of ever :V


Keeping yourself safe, of course.  Something makes me think that was a bit sarcastic... can't tell emotion through a screen.  ;A;


Kyrodo said:


> Wish it were a requirement to have substantial evidence before enacting a death penalty.


I'm willing to bet that in 90% of the cases, it is, thanks to modern forensic equipment and techniques.


----------



## Fenrari (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm indifferent on the subject.

There's arguments for and against. Someone in jail for life is just a waste of resources, chance are they're too dangerous to be released on any program and at the same time, if you put them down there is the possibility they might have been innocent. So what do you do?


----------



## Archias (Sep 22, 2011)

Dont post often, but this thread caught my attention due to local relevance. Troy Davis was finally executed last night.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011...rgia_to_proceed_with_high_profile_execut.html


As this all happened in my hometown, I'm glad its over with. Ive gotten quite tired of hearing the constant chorus of bleeding hearts and legal profiteers that have been surrounding this convicted murderer for years now. Anytime it was brought up locally, it was a circus. Honestly, I think the guy just has surrounded himself with people that know how to exploit a tragedy, good PR basically. 

As for my view on the death penalty. In general I find human-life to be significantly overvalued and as long as the courts have made their decision in due course, then that's fine with me. Its their job to deal out the adequate perceived justice. Not mine.

And no, before you ask, I don't have any notions about magic sky wizards that will carry me into the clouds when I die.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 22, 2011)

I would like to see source information posted on the costs of death sentence inmates versus the long-term costs of life sentence inmates.


On another related subject:

I'm amazed some of you do not realize that a life sentence in prison IS a death penalty.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> I'm amazed some of you do not realize that a life sentence in prison IS a death penalty.


Where they get to eat and be sheltered for free.  Fuck that.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Well they are just overpowered nail guns, and I find that cruel.  They are used for systematic slaughter of animals, not fellow humans. You also have to get point blank which is problematic.  It may be romanticized in America, but is common form of execution in other parts of the world.  As I said the captive bolt is cruel; it all depends upon your context and I feel bullets are more humane, than spikes.


Out of curiosity... If you can decide to kill a human, that is no direct threat and can be kept that way, what difference IS there between that human and slaughter-cattle? If a bolt through the brain kills them directly, what makes killing them with a gun more humane? (unless I'm missing the point and it is not strong enough to slaughter the criminal). 

@ Op, I guess the USA didn't repealed it yet, because politicans persuadet the ppl to believe, that it is just to kill an human that did certain crimes and that only someone who did one of that crimes can be convicted, so everytime someone is executed it is a great act of justice... (and the sane people seem to not get a majority to ban it), (imho no culture or nation that claims to be civilized can have the death penality, shooting a murderer or rapist or such that tries to flee/can'T be captured and inprisoned, and so is a danger to society, is defense of others (or whatever the correct english term is), shooting (or whatever) a prisoner that has no realistic chance to escape is murder)


----------



## Rasly (Sep 22, 2011)




----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Where they get to eat and be sheltered for free.  Fuck that.


 
HUMAN....BEINGS

Have you seen or even looked into today's American Prison system, you act like they are staying in a Hilton or something. 

Godfuckingdammit


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 22, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> HUMAN....BEINGS
> 
> Have you seen or even looked into today's American Prison system, you act like they are staying in a Hilton or something.
> 
> Godfuckingdammit


You've been in prison? Do tell!

My stance on the death 'penalty' is, if they're going to die sometime _anyway_, why rush it? Sounds like 'hurr imma send y'all ta Hell fer wut y'all did!'


----------



## Onnes (Sep 22, 2011)

For those asking about death penalty costs, you can look at what is probably the most detailed study here from Duke University. Their conclusion reads:



			
				Study said:
			
		

> The extra costs of adjudicating murder cases capitally outweigh the savings in imprisonment costs.
> As it is currently implemented, the death penalty cannot be justified solely on the grounds of economy. ...



What you have to keep in mind is that while all death penalty cases cost additional resources, not every one of them ends in a capital sentence and not every capital sentence actually ends in an execution. This particular study was based on North Carolina and estimated that only 10-30% of death penalty convicts were eventually executed.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> That long-term solitary confinement is plainly inhumane doesn't even register on the list?



Honestly, as it currently stands the entire prison system in the US is inhumane.  Throwing pot-smokers, petty thieves and various other non-violent offenders in with hardened killers and rapists? It's like feeding lambs to lions.



Lobar said:


> e: this whole thread, what the fucking fuck, does it even register that these are still human beings you're discussing regardless of what they've done



There is some sort of need for some people to separate themselves from the rapists and murderers and such, as if to say to some undefined entity "I am TOTALLY not with them, I am not like them, I swear".  So, they mentally designate these people as simply not being truly human, as if the "true" human being was such a noble creature that such horrific deeds were inconceivable to them.  They say it openly at times, using terms like "inhuman monster".  Of course, fact of the matter is that violence is a part of the "human condition".


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 22, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> HUMAN....BEINGS
> 
> Have you seen or even looked into today's American Prison system, you act like they are staying in a Hilton or something.


 


Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You've been in prison? Do tell!'



Five words: National Geographic's "America's Hardest Prisons"

They might be sheltered and fed for 'free', but they Can. Not. Leave. 

Frankly death would be an _easy release_ compared to what inmates have to put up with in these sorts of prisons. Especially if the only way you're leaving the place is in a box... after 50-odd years.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You've been in prison? Do tell!
> 
> My stance on the death 'penalty' is, if they're going to die sometime _anyway_, why rush it? Sounds like 'hurr imma send y'all ta Hell fer wut y'all did!'


 
I know so many people that have I might as well have been.

Try harder.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

a rape occurs in the american prison system every four minutes


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> a rape occurs in the american prison system every four minutes



BUT 

FREE SHELTER AND GOURMET FOOOOOOOOOOD


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> a rape occurs in the american prison system every four minutes



not to mention all the stabbings, beatings (and not all from other inmates I'm sure) and the seemingly distant yet ever-looming possibility that an inmate with HIV who knowingly or unknowingly transmits it through prison rape can effectively turn a month-long stay for another inmate for a relatively minor offense into a death sentence


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> GOURMET FOOOOOOOOOOD





> We are still on lockdown, almost 2 weeks of this status with no end in sight. This morning the meal was 6 prunes, a smashed up sandwich which consisted of two pieces of bread and a spoonful of eggsâ€¦there was more bread than anything, also a small container of dry cereal which contained 90 calories. I kicked mine over to my neighbor so he at least could get enough to eatâ€¦



-Mark Stroman's "Death Blog", two days before execution​


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2011)

You know what really gets me, is that prisons are better at hardening and training criminals than anywhere else.  You go to jail with a bunch of other experienced crooks and you learn how to do what they did, and do it BETTER sometimes.  This is a BRILLIANT idea, let's throw the small fish in with the sharks.  The fish that survive become sharks and go out and do this shit all over again before they get brought back to the tank.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Telnac said:


> As far as I know, Death Row inmates are already in solitary confinement in every state in the USA.  If I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me!  Yeah, they have exercise time, they can read a book and whatnot so it's not like they're locked in a dark cell 24/7 with no interaction whatsoever.  But they don't go among the general population, ever!  I'm not proposing anything more than continuing the conditions they're being kept in... for the rest of their lives.



Going by the actual definition of what constitutes solitary confinement, being on Death Row is no where near it.  Solitary means no human contact EVER.  Death Row inmates are allowed visitations, television, radios, and so on and so forth.  They are given basic human interaction in limited forms, the lack of which is the root cause of psychological problems with inmates in solitary.  And one would think one of the main reasons why they aren't among the prison population is so that other inmates don't hurt/kill them so that their execution may be done as "humanely" as possible while still treating them as convicts.



> As for getting public support for a new prison, I'm not saying it would be easy.  But in this current era of large deficits and a desire to cut spending, I think you could make a good case for it as a cost-saving measure, especially in states like CA.  As for the "not in my town" problem, CA and TX are trivial: build it out in the desert, away from any major community.  Even in Florida if you go to the small towns, which are hurting for jobs and for people to buy underwater homes, they might embrace the prison like it's a godsend.



CA wouldn't be able to build in the desert somewhere.  A lot of that area is considered protected land, and there's still plenty of tourism dollars to be made from keeping the area pristine and free of a large building containing death row inmates.  Not to mention that with CA's budget issues, the last thing they want is to add to their 33 prison facilities.  Prison jobs aren't exactly "god sends" as you'd describe them.  Most of them are taken up by cops who weren't up-to-snuff for actual patrol work or are on the last legs of their careers.  You still need to pass all the tests you would need to become a regular cop, with the actual grunt work which would require restraining inmates and so on limiting potential employees because they need to be in top physical and mental condition.  You don't just walk in and hand over a resume is what I'm getting at.  Not to mention most people wouldn't be thrilled to sign a release stating "we will not negotiate on your behalf in a hostage crisis.  Good luck!"



> As for your concern about violent offenders in the general population, I think that's outside the scope of this thread.  The prison system's not perfect, and I'm not going to pretend it is.



Neither am I, but the idea here being that I'm referring to those violent offenders who actually do kill other inmates and so on.  Lifers will walk amongst the common prison population.  Having an overly violent inmate who has a history of assaulting other inmates, beating them within an inch of their lives if not killing them, walking among the prison population of people who aren't in there for life undermines the idea of rehabilitation by creating an atmosphere where someone isn't reflecting so much on their choices in life as opposed to if they'll walk out of the cafeteria alive today.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2011)

Tycho said:


> You know what really gets me, is that prisons are better at hardening and training criminals than anywhere else.  You go to jail with a bunch of other experienced crooks and you learn how to do what they did, and do it BETTER sometimes.  This is a BRILLIANT idea, let's throw the small fish in with the sharks.  The fish that survive become sharks and go out and do this shit all over again before they get brought back to the tank.


 
Particularly when considering that you could have taken the same amount of money it takes to put these minor criminals through "the system" and used it to prevent that crime in the first place by funding education and other public projects in the city.

But educators don't have the same powerful lobby that prison contractors do, soooo...


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Particularly when considering that you could have taken the same amount of money it takes to put these minor criminals through "the system" and used it to prevent that crime in the first place by funding education and other public projects in the city.
> 
> But educators don't have the same powerful lobby that prison contractors do, soooo...



Public education is not NEARLY as profitable, by immediate inspection.  Long term gain or short term gain, choices... people are in a big fat hurry to make money.  "Fuck you got mine, and I'll take it all with me too."




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Neither am I, but the idea here being that I'm referring to those violent offenders who actually do kill other inmates and so on. Lifers will walk amongst the common prison population. Having an overly violent inmate who has a history of assaulting other inmates, beating them within an inch of their lives if not killing them, walking among the prison population of people who aren't in there for life undermines the idea of rehabilitation by creating an atmosphere where someone isn't reflecting so much on their choices in life as opposed to if they'll walk out of the cafeteria alive today.



It has never been a matter of rehabilitation.  Prisons are treated as garbage bins.  Throw stuff in and forget about it.  Maybe recycle and redeem a few here and there.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> But educators don't have the same powerful lobby that prison contractors do, soooo...



Clearly you have not met the NJEA.



Tycho said:


> It has never been a matter of rehabilitation.  Prisons are treated as garbage bins.  Throw stuff in and forget about it.  Maybe recycle and redeem a few here and there.[/COLOR]



Going to respectfully disagree here.

I know personally that East Jersey State Prison, a maximum security institution, has done a great job of offering several vocational programs for inmates to learn trades like auto body, plumbing, carpentry, and so on while also giving them a chance to get a high school diploma/GED.  Many prisons around the country offer similar programs for their inmates.  However, it's up to the individual inmate though to apply themselves, because the prison system can't force someone to take part in these programs.

EDIT:  Inmates can also take college courses through Union County Community College.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Rapists should be executed.  Same goes to kidnappers, and child molesters.



Well, inmates who have committed offenses of most any sort against kids are frequently put at the top of other inmates' hit lists, anyway.  They frequently have to separate child molesters from the general population, because apparently guys who beat their wives/girlfriends to death in cold blood and people who get their jollies from jamming objects up into other people's very personal spaces without permission and maiming/killing them later HAVE THEIR STANDARDS.  :roll:


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 22, 2011)

WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS
WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 22, 2011)

Onnes said:


> <quote>



I'm all for the death penalty, but I guess the deciding factor for me is cost. Economically at least, life in prison without parole seems to be the more viable option :/


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 22, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> I'm all for the death penalty, but I guess the deciding factor for me is cost. Economically at least, life in prison without parole seems to be the more viable option :/


LOL, 'viable'.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Sep 22, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> Because we don't want the death penalty to end- the best way to ensure that people fear and respect our judicial system is with legalized human sacrifice.



You'd best be trolling.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Rapists should be executed.  Same goes to kidnappers, and child molesters.


 
Or you know have a better REFORM system. 


And kidnapping dosent always involve you know, children.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 22, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> You'd best be trolling.


To the uninitiated, some guy reading from a religious text while some other guy gets fried before spectators cold be misconstrued as ritual sacrifice :V


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 22, 2011)

Now now, let us not compare humans as monsters.

You see, with a monster there really is nothing to fear. You always know where a monster stands and what its intentions will be. They're the bad guys, through and through.

Now with us humans, there is something to fear. You never really know what someone else is thinking.

"_I never really was on your side..."_


----------



## greg-the-fox (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I'm 110%  pro death penalty.
> 
> Some people just don't deserve to live.


On an emotional level, I totally agree with this.
The problem is, we're not always so sure. Some of the time new DNA evidence comes out which would prove their innocence, but it's usually too late, or just plain ignored like in these recent cases. I think both the seriousness of the crime and the body of evidence should be much, much, stricter than that needed for a life sentence though.
Even though I'm a massive liberal on most issues, I just can't bring myself to say we should totally abolish it. I can't make a good non-emotion based argument for it though.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2011)

Emotion does not belong in the justice system.  Period.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> True. The DNA and all evidence needs to be stricter, to prevent unintentional deaths.  100% sure that the person did it; then the death penality could be brought up.



So we can just call Troy Davis collateral damage for the justice system.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 22, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Emotion does not belong in the justice system. Period.


But if the justice system maintains the laws, and the laws are based off of social convention, and social convention is largely based off of 'morals', then how can you really keep emotion out? Morals are not based off of pure logic, after all.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> But what defines the context of morals then?


I don't pretend to know, but I suspect there is a lot of instinct involved that can't simply  be 'overwritten'.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Executing someone when there is so much doubt about their guilt due to mass witness recantation and police misconduct *is* murder.



Which is why I said


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of   life. *Therefore, in the issue of taking life we must determine whether   or not is lawful or not.*


----------



## Bliss (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of  life.


What is this codswallop and wh-

...

_Oh._ :V


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Which is why I said


 
WWJD

For the death penalty


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> The death penality should be expanded to take on other criminals.
> 
> Such as rapists, child molesters, and kidnappers.  Just saying.



Ah yes, let's take the concept of Eye for an Eye and raise the bar. Instead of JUST killing those who kill, let's also kill those who have committed non-murder crimes. We can hit them with a much worse punishment than what they did to society.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> What about provoked suicide?  One of my friends was talking about locking a person in a room and playing childrens' shows theme songs, like *My Little Pony, Barney, Dora the Explorer, Blues Clues,* etc., and waiting for them to beg for death.  Knock them out, then when they come to, repeat the process until you get bored and hand them a gun.



It's sad if watching those shows would cause someone to beg for death.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 22, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> WWJD
> 
> For the death penalty



American Jesus? He'd go surfing.

:V


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

Murderers or serious criminals should be shown no mercy, in my opinion.  My cousin's being psychologically tested to see if he can plead guilty to insanity and manslaughter, instead of second-degree murder.  Complete bullshit.  The only reason he didn't know what the fuck he was doing was because he's been on drugs his whole life.  I have no sympathy for someone who is my own flesh and blood, let alone someone whose name I'm barely familiar with via courtroom.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Sep 22, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Murderers or serious criminals should be shown no mercy, in my opinion.  My cousin's being psychologically tested to see if he can plead guilty to insanity and manslaughter, instead of second-degree murder.  Complete bullshit.  The only reason he didn't know what the fuck he was doing was because he's been on drugs his whole life.  I have no sympathy for someone who is my own flesh and blood, let alone someone whose name I'm barely familiar with via courtroom.


 
Well if you get caught dealing weed in California 3 times you basically become a serious criminal.

AMERICA


----------



## Spatel (Sep 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Rapists should be executed.  Same goes to kidnappers, and child molesters.



Nobody should be executed.

Also, I don't know if anyone has pointed this out to you, but if you give these three the same penalty as murderers, they no longer have any incentive to let their victims survive.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 22, 2011)

Aleu said:


> It's sad if watching those shows would cause someone to beg for death.



Yeah... "Barney" I can understand, that show would be lethal if I had to watch/listen 24/7.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm for the death penalty only if the evidence to the crime is concrete and will prove absolute 110% guilty. They should allow lie detectors as a form of evidence in court.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 22, 2011)

I think the justice system should be adjusted to work with a system of "Justice Points". The justice system works as normal, but you get an allotment of "Justice Points" that you can spend to get away with crime, or lower the penalty, or control/raise the penalties for other people. If you're rich, your yearly allotment of Justice Points is higher than if you are poor. Although, if you're a poor white person, your allotment is just about on par with a rich minority person's.

Oh wait, nothing would change.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 22, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yeah... "Barney" I can understand, that show would be lethal if I had to watch/listen 24/7.



Are you kidding? Barney is so boss.



PenningtontheSkunk said:


> I'm for the death penalty only if the evidence to the crime is concrete and will prove absolute 110% guilty. They should allow lie detectors as a form of evidence in court.



No, they shouldn't. Despite popular belief, lie detectors can't really tell if someone is lying or not. It's too faulty. We'd end up with more people in jail than there should be.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 22, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> I'm for the death penalty only if the evidence to the crime is concrete and will prove absolute 110% guilty. They should allow lie detectors as a form of evidence in court.


I thought they did already?  And with enough practice and composure, one could trick a lie detector.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 23, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I thought they did already?  And with enough practice and composure, one could trick a lie detector.


Are you sure sheer nervousness won't trip a lie detector? I don't trust lie detectors enough to have it in a court room.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 23, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> Are you sure sheer nervousness won't trip a lie detector? I don't trust lie detectors enough to have it in a court room.


Dunno about that.  I suppose they could, given the detector's limited spectrum of guilt or nerves a person has or doesn't have.  I've never heard of such an instance, though.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 23, 2011)

All lie detectors prove is that "THIS PERSON IS NERVOUS."


----------



## Lunar (Sep 23, 2011)

Tycho said:


> All lie detectors prove is that "THIS PERSON IS NERVOUS."


And I would fail them... I'd cry like a little bitch if I got pulled over for speeding or something.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 23, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> And I would fail them... I'd cry like a little bitch if I got pulled over for speeding or something.


Your not the only one.


Aleu said:


> No, they shouldn't. Despite popular belief, lie  detectors can't really tell if someone is lying or not. It's too faulty.  We'd end up with more people in jail than there should be.


Still it gives something to put on the plate but who says the device can't be technologically upgraded so it can decipher nervousness and a lie.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 23, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> And I would fail them... I'd cry like a little bitch if I got pulled over for speeding or something.


 
Nervous, sure.  Tell it to the judge.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> WWJD
> 
> For the death penalty



An interesting perspective from a Christian nun who has acted a a spiritual advisor to prisoners on Death Row - including witnessing the actual executions. As a Christian, she's not in favour of the death penalty:



			
				Sister Helen Prejean said:
			
		

> There's a lot of what I call "biblical quarterbacking" going on in death-penalty debates: people toss in quotes from the Bible to back up what they've already decided anyway. People want to not only practice vengeance but also have God agree with them. The same thing happened in this country in the slavery debates and in the debates over women's suffrage.
> 
> Religion is tricky business. Quote that Bible. God said torture. God said kill. God said get even. [...] I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. *Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to "God's Avengers." Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God's authority and God's blessing. I do not believe in such a God.*





			
				Sister Helen Prejean said:
			
		

> I see the death penalty connected to the three deepest wounds of our society: racism, poverty, and violence.
> 
> In this country, first the hangman's noose, then the electric chair, and now the lethal-injection gurney have been almost exclusively reserved for those who kill white people.
> 
> ...





			
				Sister Helen Prejean said:
			
		

> And why do poor people get the death penalty? It has everything to do with the kind of defense they get. [...] Money gets you good defense. That's why you'll never see an O.J. Simpson on death row. As the saying goes: *"Capital punishment means them without the capital get the punishment."*





			
				Sister Helen Prejean said:
			
		

> Finally, the third wound is our penchant for trying to solve our problems with violence. When you witness an execution and watch the toll this process also takes on some of those who are charged with the actual executionâ€”the 12 guards on the strap-down team and the wardenâ€”*you recognize that part of the moral dilemma of the death penalty is also: who deserves to kill this man? * (emphasis added)


----------



## Nyxneko (Sep 23, 2011)

Please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks that America should take a page from Rome's playbook and force prisoners convicted of certain crimes (rape, murder, etc.) to fight to the death for our amusement rather than continue to pollute our fair country. :V

 Also, to jump into the religious aspect of this debate as a Christian in favor of the death penalty: In the Bible St. Paul affirms the state's credibility to rule and cast judgment (Romans Ch. 13 for the curious among you) The key passage in this segment is "For rulers hold no terror  for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be  free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you  will be commended. For  the one in authority is Godâ€™s servant for your good. But if you do  wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They  are Godâ€™s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the  wrongdoer" Now that isn't to say that the person on death row is absolutely going to Hell, it is always possible to seek God's forgiveness for one's crimes (citing the crucifixion here, more specifically when Jesus pardons one of his fellow condemned) and have your sins erased in His eyes. 

TL;DR: God is in favor of established governments as agents of his will, and a death sentence doesn't mean you can't be forgiven, only that you're being punished for what you did.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Sep 23, 2011)

Nyxneko said:


> Please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks that America should take a page from Rome's playbook and force prisoners convicted of certain crimes (rape, murder, etc.) to fight to the death for our amusement rather than continue to pollute our fair country.



As I`m sure we`re all aware, America would not do something like this because they pride themselves on their fair treatment of all individuals. :v


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Sep 23, 2011)

Its cause our country has to kill people to show that killing is wrong.  SO
Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong?


----------



## Lunar (Sep 23, 2011)

Nyxneko said:


> Please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks that America should take a page from Rome's playbook and force prisoners convicted of certain crimes (rape, murder, etc.) to fight to the death for our amusement rather than continue to pollute our fair country. :V



Exactly what I said.  And still think.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 23, 2011)

How can you say "I want this murderer to die"

and honestly think yourself any better than them


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 23, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> How can you say "I want this murderer to die"
> 
> and honestly think yourself any better than them


how can you say "i want him to live"
after he just killed your love ones


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 23, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> How can you say "I want this murderer to die"
> 
> and honestly think yourself any better than them



Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Throne of Khorne!


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 23, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> how can you say "i want him to live"
> after he just killed your love ones


Please to listen.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 23, 2011)

Imo if someone gets a death penalty, it should be slow and painful, like the misery and suffering he or she caused to the victim and his/her family.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 23, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Imo if someone gets a death penalty, it should be slow and painful, like the misery and suffering he or she caused to the victim and his/her family.


Get out of our country. >:V


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 23, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Imo if someone gets a death penalty, it should be slow and painful, like the misery and suffering he or she caused to the victim and his/her family.



I agree. Civilization is for pussies. :V


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 23, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> how can you say "i want him to live"
> after he just killed your love ones



By saying "Yes, he's killed people, but I don't want to be like him"




Ad Hoc said:


> Please to listen.



There are not enough people like this woman


----------



## Aetius (Sep 23, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Imo if someone gets a death penalty, it should be slow and painful, like the misery and suffering he or she caused to the victim and his/her family.



This is so much, but you also need to make it a public spectacle!

Think of the ticket sales.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 23, 2011)

Yeah, think of it if we even marketed that for audiences. People love to see people die, the romans proved it with colosseum (though they also fought)
But why should we give a fuck how nice it feels to die for the murderer? He fucking killed/raped/tortured/sliced people, and we should act nice? Fuck that.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 23, 2011)

"But mooo-_oo_o_o_m, he started it!"


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 23, 2011)

So we should let them go 'off' the hook? Without them having to be afraid of pain?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 23, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> So we should let them go 'off' the hook? Without them having to be afraid of pain?



I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're serious or not

I'll just go ahead and post this anyway

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

We studied this phenomena in law class

Also stating that sending them to jail for a good portion of their life is "letting them off the hook" is just a bit of a stretch


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 23, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> So we should let them go 'off' the hook? Without them having to be afraid of pain?



I'm sorry, I wasn't aware sergals only see in black and white.
(Maybe it's only you northern dingle-berries :V )


----------



## Bliss (Sep 23, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> But why should we give a fuck how nice it feels to die for the murderer? He fucking killed/raped/tortured/sliced people, and we should act nice? Fuck that.


You don't have to give a fuck. I can do that for you.

Hammurabi is so 1700 BCE.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> So we should let them go 'off' the hook? Without them having to be afraid of pain?


Yes.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 23, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> "But mooo-_oo_o_o_m, he started it!"


"I don't care who started it!  I'll finish it!"


----------



## Aetius (Sep 23, 2011)

Hey look at North Korea!

No crime there...I wonder why..... :v


----------



## Nyxneko (Sep 23, 2011)

It's hard to have crime when /all/ of your criminals are executed :V


----------



## Tycho (Sep 23, 2011)

Nyxneko said:


> It's hard to have crime when /all/ of your criminals are executed :V



and a lot of innocent- I mean, potential enemies of the people too.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 23, 2011)

Welp, after reading this thread my faith in humanity hit rock bottom again.



Spatel said:


> Also, I don't know if anyone has pointed this out to you, but if you give these three the same penalty as murderers, they no longer have any incentive to let their victims survive.


Also, death penalty for murder's supposed to be based on an "eye for eye" mentality. It's pretty hard to justify execution for crimes that didn't involve murder, as the punishment doesn't fit the crime and you're going beyond "eye for eye".



lunar_helix said:


> The only reason he didn't know what the fuck he was doing was because he's been on drugs his whole life.


And you don't think the drugs didn't fuck his braincells to the point that now he IS insane? Hard drugs RAPE brain cells. Meth is a hell of a drug.



PenningtontheSkunk said:


> They should allow lie detectors as a form of evidence in court


You do realize how inaccurate lie detector tests are, right? About 10 other people here said the same thing, but lie detectors work by seeing if a person gets nervous when pressured with questions of guilt and details of a crime. The detector measures heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, and sweating. And trust me, I'd be sweating if they were interrogating me whether I was guilty or innocent.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. Therefore, in the issue of taking life we must determine whether or not is lawful or not.


Yes, but I want to know just one thing. If, IF there is even the slimmer of doubt of a man's guilt, like the person who testified against him maybe had a vendetta against him because the guy cheated with his girlfriend, or a witness couldn't see him well because it was dark, or the evidence was collected in an unprofessional way, would you still agree that that person should be executed? Since I assume you're saying that the death penalty is lawful killing, is it lawful to kill someone if there's even a shadow of doubt that he may be innocent?



Mayfurr said:


> An interesting perspective from a Christian nun who has acted a a spiritual advisor to prisoners on Death Row - including witnessing the actual executions. As a Christian, she's not in favour of the death penalty:


That article is awesome.



Nyxneko said:


> Please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks that America should take a page from Rome's playbook and force prisoners convicted of certain crimes (rape, murder, etc.) to fight to the death for our amusement rather than continue to pollute our fair country. :V.


I hope that :V means that entire sentence is sarcasm.



Ishtar5 said:


> As I`m sure we`re all aware, America would not do something like this because they pride themselves on their fair treatment of all individuals. :v


Is the :V for the idea that all people should be treated fairly, or for the fact that america DOESN'T treat everyone fairly?



Ad Hoc said:


> Please to listen.


That is the most beautiful thing I've seen in this thread so far. My faith in humanity just went up slightly again.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 23, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Hey look at North Korea!
> 
> No crime there...I wonder why..... :v



Because that particular part of the world is almost literally a black hole for information?

There's no crime reported, and reports you see from their government were written by a man who wrote in his autobiography "My father and I can control the weather"

North Korea is a bad example regardless of the stance you're taking




Nyxneko said:


> It's hard to have crime when /all/ of your criminals are executed :V



And who has to kill all of them? Are they exempt from murderer status because they are with the law?


----------



## Onnes (Sep 23, 2011)

What is boils down to is that having a death penalty available both introduces additional costs and runs the risk of executing the innocent. There is no way to support such a system that isn't both sickening and absurd.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 23, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Because that particular part of the world is almost literally a black hole for information?
> 
> There's no crime reported, and reports you see from their government were written by a man who wrote in his autobiography "My father and I can control the weather"
> 
> North Korea is a bad example regardless of the stance you're taking



North Korea would be hilarious if millions of people weren't dying from that guy's actions.


----------



## Sar (Sep 23, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Where they get to eat and be sheltered for free.  Fuck that.


inb4 someone says its cheaper to pay for that one bullet than accomidation.

It is indeed costly to keep someone in prison ($15,000 - $18,000) but not as much as for an execution. 
For an execution, I would  imagine that due to the extra officers they have to have on duty to hold down any inmate disturbance, monitor death row, it would  probably cost a little more than $20,000 for one execution.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 23, 2011)

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 23, 2011)

Sarukai said:


> inb4 someone says its cheaper to pay for that one bullet than accomidation.
> 
> It is indeed costly to keep someone in prison ($15,000 - $18,000) but not as much as for an execution.
> For an execution, I would  imagine that due to the extra officers they have to have on duty to hold down any inmate disturbance, monitor death row, it would  probably cost a little more than $20,000 for one execution.


Not to mentions the appeals process, which is absolutely necessary to weed out potentially innocent people, and is almost totally payed for by the state since most death row convicts are very poor. Legal action is _expensive_.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 23, 2011)

Aye... not only is it more cost effective, there is the whole idea that the murderer should live out their sentence behind bars to think about what they did. There's also time to figure whether or not they deserve to be there before it's too late, unlike the death penalty (although that takes forever anyway). Sure, if they were innocent, they should never have to be there in the first place, but it's better than killing them and finding out after the fact. Thinking about it, it's kinda like the Salem Witch Trials, just a lot slower.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 23, 2011)

I suppose it's points of view, if you ask me.

A life behind bars to some is worse than death.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 23, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Yes, but I want to know just one thing. If, IF there is even the slimmer of doubt of a man's guilt, like the person who testified against him maybe had a vendetta against him because the guy cheated with his girlfriend, or a witness couldn't see him well because it was dark, or the evidence was collected in an unprofessional way, would you still agree that that person should be executed? Since I assume you're saying that the death penalty is lawful killing, is it lawful to kill someone if there's even a shadow of doubt that he may be innocent?



So, because their is doubt, then no, the death penalty should not be pursued. But, then that begs the question, what about reasonable doubt in a life sentence case. Or, a multiple life sentences case? Reasonable doubt means that the person should in theory, walk free because it can't be 100% proven that they committed a crime.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 23, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.



And justice is blind. COINCIDENCE? I think not.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, because their is doubt, then no, the death penalty should not be pursued. But, then that begs the question, what about reasonable doubt in a life sentence case. Or, a multiple life sentences case? Reasonable doubt means that the person should in theory, walk free because it can't be 100% proven that they committed a crime.



The theory of "reasonable doubt" applies in ALL cases, not just those involving capital crimes. This is because it is seen (generally) as better that a guilty person go free than an innocent man convicted. So your point is in fact moot.

What you're _really_ appearing to ask is "_how much 'reasonable doubt' applies to charges involving the death penalty vs. life imprisonment?_" To this I would say that the bar of "reasonable doubt" is FAR higher than for "life" - *because the ultimate sanction of death demands ultimate proof of guilt*. At least with a "life"(1) sentence if it turns out that the conviction was wrongful, restitution to the wrongly convicted person can be made and they can carry on with their life - but you _cannot _do that with a corpse.


(1) As in "for the term of their natural life", i.e. only leaving prison in a casket.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 23, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> How can you say "I want this murderer to die"
> 
> and honestly think yourself any better than them



They're being put down because they are detrimental to society. Can't do the time, don't do the crime...and such. 

I don't see it as a crime deterrent. Just a form of punishment.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> They're being put down because they are detrimental to society. Can't do the time, don't do the crime...and such.
> 
> I don't see it as a crime deterrent. Just a form of punishment.



Is it really that much more gratifying to your sense of justice to see them die? Enough to justify the monetary expenditure? Enough to justify the potential killing, the STATE-SANCTIONED MURDER, of an innocent? Whether they face life in prison or death, it's the same thing.  They are dead to society.  They will never, EVER walk free again.  Assuming they are TRULY guilty, I would think to be locked away in a box with some of the worst the human race has to offer, and eventually be forgotten as a human being entirely before OR after they die - effectively just a figure in a database - is quite adequate for communicating to someone how wretched they are.  And if they are innocent they have the rest of their natural lives to have their innocence proven.  As it is, people who spend long amounts of time in prison are alienated from and have great difficulty adapting back to the world outside the prison walls.  They are possessed of such an institutionalized mentality and have been so for so long that they have FORGOTTEN what it means to be a free human being.  The fact that an innocent man would suffer THAT much is a travesty, and to put him to death is simply heinous.  

And for what? How much do you really get out of knowing that a man breathes no more?

EDIT: Punishment is a tool for teaching.  Nothing is taught by death.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 23, 2011)

Tycho said:


> And for what? How much do you really get out of knowing that a man breathes no more?



A lot of peoples views on the subject are hate-driven. "I want this person dead because I hate them", "They have done these wrong things therefore I hate them enough to want them to die"

Hate, as an emotion, is purely debilitating. Nothing good can come of hate

Hate does not breed the satisfaction that you desire. Hate will still fester even when the offender has departed


----------



## Lunar (Sep 23, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> Aye... *not only is it more cost effective*, there is the whole idea that the murderer should live out their sentence behind bars to think about what they did. There's also time to figure whether or not they deserve to be there before it's too late, unlike the death penalty (although that takes forever anyway). Sure, if they were innocent, they should never have to be there in the first place, but it's better than killing them and finding out after the fact. Thinking about it, it's kinda like the Salem Witch Trials, just a lot slower.


As Commie Bat said, bullets are relatively cheap.  Hell, _I_ could buy them, and I have $negative to my name.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 23, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Is it really that much more gratifying to your sense of justice to see them die? Enough to justify the monetary expenditure? Enough to justify the potential killing, the STATE-SANCTIONED MURDER, of an innocent? Whether they face life in prison or death, it's the same thing.  They are dead to society.  They will never, EVER walk free again.  Assuming they are TRULY guilty, I would think to be locked away in a box with some of the worst the human race has to offer, and eventually be forgotten as a human being entirely before OR after they die - effectively just a figure in a database - is quite adequate for communicating to someone how wretched they are.  And if they are innocent they have the rest of their natural lives to have their innocence proven.  As it is, people who spend long amounts of time in prison are alienated from and have great difficulty adapting back to the world outside the prison walls.  They are possessed of such an institutionalized mentality and have been so for so long that they have FORGOTTEN what it means to be a free human being.  The fact that an innocent man would suffer THAT much is a travesty, and to put him to death is simply heinous.
> 
> And for what? How much do you really get out of knowing that a man breathes no more?



Personally, I'm indifferent to death. It neither gives me gratification nor repulses me, but I do have lines drawn in regards to the death penalty. I don't like the idea of an innocent person being blamed which is why I'm mainly for it for repeat offenders. I find it hard to believe that with so much evidence a serial killer would leave behind, they would instead nab an innocent person. If an innocent person did get blamed then they are a hell of an unlucky individual.

I was thinking as I was reading your post. If prison is that bad to go through even for criminals, then wouldn't death be a blessing for them?


----------



## Tycho (Sep 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I was thinking as I was reading your post. If prison is that bad to go through even for criminals, then wouldn't death be a blessing for them?



_Dum spiro, spero._

They may have been crippled by time lost to them in prison, but while they live they still have that chance to come back to society and reintegrate.

For life sentences, they are never meant to come back.  But they have the rest of their lives to reflect upon their acts and their fate.  It is for their own sake that they see what wrong they did and feel shame and contrition.  Before their life ends, if they can realize the wrongness of what they did and the potential they could have realized, I think that is an important thing.

Death is a blessing only for those in such great and uncurable pain that the absence of feeling and being and the uncertainty of what lies beyond is preferable to their current state.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I was thinking as I was reading your post. If prison is that bad to go through even for criminals, then wouldn't death be a blessing for them?



That's entirely the backwards way of looking at it.  Prison is inhumane by _design_.  It's easily fixed, but the dehumanizing of those caught in it needs to stop first.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 23, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> As Commie Bat said, bullets are relatively cheap.  Hell, _I_ could buy them, and I have $negative to my name.



Here is a giant study looking at the costs incurred by death penalty cases. Note the conclusion:



			
				Study said:
			
		

> The extra costs of adjudicating murder cases capitally outweigh the savings in imprisonment costs.
> As it is currently implemented, the death penalty cannot be justified solely on the grounds of economy.



What the fuck do you think a death penalty case entails? Do you think the jury just says "GUILTY!" and the judge pulls out a revolver and offs the defendant?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't support the death penalty.

I think the humane solution should be a life sentence to soul-crushing labour without protective equipment in the Uranium Mines in Montana.

Seems reasonable.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2011)

Tycho said:


> _Dum spiro, spero._
> 
> They may have been crippled by time lost to them in prison, but while they live they still have that chance to come back to society and reintegrate.
> 
> ...



For some criminals, I don't believe they care about the lives they took. If they've killed multiple people how would they have the mindset of "I feel bad for doing something wrong"?



Lobar said:


> Hu
> 
> That's entirely the backwards way of looking at it.  Prison is inhumane by _design_.  It's easily fixed, but the dehumanizing of those caught in it needs to stop first.



The abolishment of the death penalty would come sooner imo. Dunno if you've heard but they've done away with the last meal tradition in Texas (surprise) and I think Florida but I'm not too sure about that.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 24, 2011)

I wonder what would happen if you restricted all of the criminal's senses (smell, touch, taste, see, and hear) and left them to be driven insane, alone with their own thoughts?


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 24, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> As Commie Bat said, bullets are relatively cheap.  Hell, _I_ could buy them, and I have $negative to my name.


Seeing as you don't read. Open your eyes.

The death penalty is considerably more expensive than sticking them behind bars. You seem to be under the ridiculous impression the death penalty process is as simple as buying a bullet. I'd like to see some true to life facts on this.

The fact is plain and simple. The death penalty is fucking expensive and therefore, impractical. Some states are starting to revoke it already just for that reason alone.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 24, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I wonder what would happen if you restricted all of the criminal's senses (smell, touch, taste, see, and hear) and left them to be driven insane, alone with their own thoughts?



Torture is not the prison's mission, or should not be anyway.

And I can't imagine how you'd keep him fed and such if he's under complete sensory deprivation.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Sep 24, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I wonder what would happen if you restricted all of the criminal's senses (smell, touch, taste, see, and hear) and left them to be driven insane, alone with their own thoughts?



Post of the year, why did I ever leave this place :V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I wonder what would happen if you restricted all of the criminal's senses (smell, touch, taste, see, and hear) and left them to be driven insane, alone with their own thoughts?



That's called solitary, and as expected, it causes extreme and irreparable psychological damage.  Speaking of which, what the hell is exactly wrong with you?


----------



## Lunar (Sep 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> That's called solitary, and as expected, it causes extreme and irreparable psychological damage.  Speaking of which, what the hell is exactly wrong with you?


Didn't know anything was wrong.  Evidently something's not wired right.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> That's called solitary, and as expected, it causes extreme and irreparable psychological damage.  Speaking of which, what the hell is exactly wrong with you?



Actually, solitary confinement is different from sensory deprivation. In solitary, they're still aware of where they are. In sensory deprivation, the person is usually in a water tank (if going for complete deprivation as what lunar seems to suggest).



lunar_helix said:


> Didn't know anything was wrong.  Evidently something's not wired right.



Wanting people tortured isn't a clue in of itself? God damn.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Didn't know anything was wrong.  Evidently something's not wired right.



I can only imagine that you've spent more time in this thread contemplating ways to inflict suffering upon other human beings than your average sample of the very prisoners we're discussing.



Aleu said:


> Actually, solitary confinement is different from sensory deprivation. In solitary, they're still aware of where they are. In sensory deprivation, the person is usually in a water tank (if going for complete deprivation as what lunar seems to suggest).



Close enough.  Keeping people in a water tank indefinitely will kill them anyways (why I keep saying these things like they matter to this thread's participants, I don't know).


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, because their is doubt, then no, the death penalty should not be pursued. But, then that begs the question, what about reasonable doubt in a life sentence case. Or, a multiple life sentences case? Reasonable doubt means that the person should in theory, walk free because it can't be 100% proven that they committed a crime.



The standard as it applies to the death penalty is because of the severity and irreversibility of the punishment.  Someone who is wrongfully imprisoned can be released, apologized to and possibly compensated (possibly in this case meaning "may remotely approach repayment for having tens of years of your life stolen from you and kept in a hellhole of a prison.")  You can't really do the same for someone who is wrongfully executed.  That's to say nothing of the fact that if they were innocent, that means either the crime was not actually a crime (see: Cameron Todd Willingham, the house fire was not arson) or even worse, an innocent person has died while the real criminal has essentially avoided all consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Evidentiary_standards_of_proof There are different standards for different types of cases.  You would expect something such as state execution to be held to a high standard before it can be handed down.  Life sentences are less rigorous, but are still rigorous.

Applying high standards of the death penalty to life sentencing (as an alternative to, you know, the executions of which you seem to be in favor) to make it appear foolish and "soft on crime" is a silly argument to make, especially if your conclusion is that it is ridiculous to desire a high standard of evidence for executing people.  It's not "kill criminals or let them get away scot-free," and I honestly hope that's not your ultimate argument.  I see this false dichotomy all the time whenever anything related to the excessive and bloodthirsty punishments routinely carried out in the United States "justice" system that you're either in favor of bringing ultimate justice to criminal scum breaking the law on your watch, or you're in favor of giving babies to child rapists. It's ridiculous.

Beyond the bloodlust and revenge fantasies, a lot of the support in this thread is a load of "just world" justifications.  "If they were innocent they wouldn't be on death row, they are on death row, therefore they are guilty.  And if they're innocent of that crime, they must have done something else that would justify executing them anyway."  Stupid reasoning.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I can only imagine that you've spent more time in this thread contemplating ways to inflict suffering upon other human beings than your average sample of the very prisoners we're discussing.


A lot of it comes from outside sources.  The sensory deprivation one, I read that online somewhere.  I think it was a Creepypasta story, and although just a tale someone spun, it made me wonder exactly how that would work.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 24, 2011)

The only way to make the death penalty cost effective is to eliminate or severely restrict the right of the convicted to appeal their conviction.  That's the way the death penalty worked in the 19th century.  You were convicted on Friday, dead by noon on Monday.  It was cheap, quick and... I shudder to think of how many wrongly convicted people were sent to the gallows.

I'd like to think we've evolved since then as a civilization.  The reason we allow so many appeals is that we want to make damned sure we're not killing someone who doesn't deserve death.  While that's a laudable goal, my problem with it is that no amount of appeals can make up for the fact that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is _*not*_ the same as "guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever."  

If we could be 100% certain of a murderer's guilt and sanity, I could support the death penalty.  The problem is that 100% certain is an unrealistic standard.   Eyewitness testimony is flawed at best, so we have to go with something  stronger.  Would DNA evidence be enough, or do we need video evidence  too?  Who decides that?  The judge?  The state legislature?  12 people who couldn't find a way to weasel out of jury duty? 

IMO, it's better, cheaper and more fair to simply lock up would-be Death Row inmates for the rest of their natural lives.  They're only leaving the prison in a coffin either way.  Better to wait 50 years for them to expire naturally than burn 2+ decades and tens of millions of dollars on appeal after appeal just so we can have the illusion of a "humane" death penalty system.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 24, 2011)

Telnac said:


> The only way to make the death penalty cost effective is to eliminate or severely restrict the right of the convicted to appeal their conviction.  That's the way the death penalty worked in the 19th century.  You were convicted on Friday, dead by noon on Monday.



That's *still *pretty much the case in Singapore (a.k.a. "Disneyland with the Death Penalty") today - although in their case there is _one_ chance of appeal to the courts, _one _chance of clemency from the President of Singapore, and all hangings are conducted on Fridays.



Telnac said:


> It was cheap, quick and... I shudder to think of how many wrongly convicted people were sent to the gallows.
> 
> I'd like to think we've evolved since then as a civilization.  The reason we allow so many appeals is that we want to make damned sure we're not killing someone who doesn't deserve death.  While that's a laudable goal, my problem with it is that no amount of appeals can make up for the fact that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is _*not*_ the same as "guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever."
> 
> ...



This.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Sep 24, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> Is the :V for the idea that all people should be treated fairly, or for the fact that america DOESN'T treat everyone fairly?



In a sense, both.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 24, 2011)

Nyxneko said:


> It's hard to have crime when /all/ of your criminals are executed :V



Indeed, this is very much so.




Mayfurr said:


> *The theory of "reasonable doubt" applies in ALL cases, not just those involving capital crimes.* This is because it is seen (generally) as better that a guilty person go free than an innocent man convicted. So your point is in fact moot.
> 
> What you're _really_ appearing to ask is "_how much 'reasonable doubt' applies to charges involving the death penalty vs. life imprisonment?_" To this I would say that the bar of "reasonable doubt" is FAR higher than for "life" - *because the ultimate sanction of death demands ultimate proof of guilt*. At least with a "life"(1) sentence if it turns out that the conviction was wrongful, restitution to the wrongly convicted person can be made and they can carry on with their life - but you _cannot _do that with a corpse.
> 
> ...



Indeed... as I've said before, if there is any doubt, then the accused goes free.  "Innocent until PROVEN guilty."  If you can't prove guilt, you can't convict.  But, as you've noticed, this isn't always the case... it is not equally applied.




Tycho said:


> And for what? How much do you really get out of knowing that a man breathes no more?
> 
> EDIT: Punishment is a tool for teaching.  *Nothing is taught by death.*



Death teaches the living, so it does serve a purpose.




Tycho said:


> Torture is not the prison's mission, or should not be anyway.
> 
> *And I can't imagine how you'd keep him fed and such if he's under complete sensory deprivation.*



Same way they keep a coma victim fed, by needle.


----------



## Markov (Sep 24, 2011)

Execution necessary more I say! During great battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad many Russian soldiers take glorious fight to evil fascist Germans, but some become scared. Some Russians become so scared they forget how much they love the Great Socialist Cause and run away from battle! Luckily vigilant Commissars stand back with machine gun crew, executing any who try to run in direction other than Germans. 

And who won those battle? Russia. Execution works. All others are illusions.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 24, 2011)

[URL="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent"]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent

[URL="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates"]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

[URL="http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=45"]http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=45

[/URL][/URL][/URL]Too lazy to read? Tl;dr the death penalty is not a deterrent. 
Also Markov, the war ended. Get over it.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 24, 2011)

Markov, you frighten me.
I wonder what would be an effective deterrent, then?  God knows nothing else works.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 24, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I wonder what would be an effective deterrent, then?  God knows nothing else works.



Good education.

Teachers and guidance counselors stepping into a child's life to help them cope with broken homes, making kids WANT to learn and achieve through hard work and determination through scholarly knowledge as opposed to relegating themselves to trying to become a celebrity.

Giving kids the tools to succeed in a positive way in life can greatly help reduce the amount of violent crimes that may occur as adults.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Good education.
> 
> Teachers and guidance counselors stepping into a child's life to help them cope with broken homes, making kids WANT to learn and achieve through hard work and determination through scholarly knowledge as opposed to relegating themselves to trying to become a celebrity.
> 
> Giving kids the tools to succeed in a positive way in life can greatly help reduce the amount of violent crimes that may occur as adults.



Ounce of prevention > pound of cure.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Good education.


"Not with my tax money!"



> Teachers and guidance counselors making kids WANT to learn and achieve through hard work and determination through scholarly knowledge as opposed to relegating themselves to trying to become a celebrity.


So if I want to become the president that's bad?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 24, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> "Not with my tax money!"



According to some sources, in the state of New Jersey at least, we pay about $20,000 per student every year to teach them.  It's not an issue of money, but how effective the educating process is.



> So if I want to become the president that's bad?



This is going towards the idea that inner city kids HAVE to be either good at sports or rappers to move up in the world, otherwise they'll end up in prison.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> This is going towards the idea that inner city kids HAVE to be either good at sports or rappers to move up in the world, otherwise they'll end up in prison.



Those are exclusive to one another? This is news to me.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 24, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Those are exclusive to one another? This is news to me.



It's a stereotype Tycho.  But one that some kids buy into all too much.  There are a lot of kids who neglect their studies because they're too busy trying to become a better basketball player or so on.  Not all of them make it and those that do might end up playing in Europe until they're used up and having nothing else going for them.

Of course this says nothing about how a criminal's lifestyle may seem appealing because more often than not, they have the money and wear flashy clothes which entices kids to want to hold some sort of status in their lives which doesn't include learning anything other than an illegal trade.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> According to some sources, in the state of New Jersey at least, we pay about $20,000 per student every year to teach them.  It's not an issue of money, but how effective the educating process is.


Oh, we do that with 6600 â‚¬ a year (as of 2010). *smug* :V



> This is going towards the idea that inner city kids HAVE to be either good at sports or rappers to move up in the world, otherwise they'll end up in prison.


Is this the idea of inner city kids or others? I was going to point out how you, if my memory serves me well, work in entertainment. You people need the new meat.

And I would make an _excellent_ celebrity, I tell you that! :smile:


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 24, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Is this the idea of inner city kids or others?



It's a popular inner city stigma that their options are limited to either making it big or going to prison.  In some cases both happens.  There's no middle ground when it comes what the expectations are for those kids.



> I was going to point out how you, if my memory serves me well, work in entertainment. You people need the new meat.



I work in many different areas of video production.  Sports, entertainment, music, and news.  The company I'm working with in DC that I mentioned in my other thread is a non-profit human interest news organization.  I basically go where the money is.

And speaking as a sports fan and a follower of all things that go on within, I'd much rather have athletes coming out who've graduated college with degrees and THEN transfer to professional sports as opposed to the innumerable amounts of corruption and recruiting violations that have come to represent what a fair share of Division-I NCAA athletics has become in this country.  I can be proud to say that at least Rider, where I attended college, graduated over 95% of all its student-athletes.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 24, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Ounce of prevention > pound of cure.



Or you can use this:  "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Or you can use this:  "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."



Well that saying was proven false so I don't think it'd work.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 24, 2011)

What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop     		them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do,extend             their sentences? Sure, they     		can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing?

This is why I say that sometimes, its necessary for the safety of people. For the sake of the community, habitual criminals that do heinous crimes, have to be put to death. The death penalty should never, ever be taken lightly, but I think it is foolish to ban it.

It also should be noted that nearly all who are on death row, have a large lengthy criminal record.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Ounce of prevention > pound of cure.


 
But prevention isn't gratifying!



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop     		them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do,extend             their sentences? Sure, they     		can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing?


 
Remove them from the general population, duh.  Make sure they never get another human being within arm's reach again.

Also if you're going to copy-paste plagiarize again, at least edit out the hardcoded line spacing, goddamn.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Remove them from the general population, duh.  Make sure they never get another human being within arm's reach again.



Except that keeping a person in complete isolation forever is deemed by many inhumane and torture.  And then you run into the problem of inmate suicide from that physiological torture, in which the prison can be sued for (its happened), costing more taxpayer money. And I will add, what you suggest just isn't possible unless you just lock them in a cell and basically forget about them (except to give them food and water). Kinda like a forget-me-not from the medieval ages. With a modern application.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Except that keeping a person in complete isolation forever is deemed by many inhumane and torture.  And then you run into the problem of inmate suicide from that physiological torture, in which the prison can be sued for (its happened), costing more taxpayer money. And I will add, what you suggest just isn't possible unless you just lock them in a cell and basically forget about them (except to give them food and water). Kinda like a forget-me-not from the medieval ages. With a modern application.


They wouldn't be in complete isolation.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 24, 2011)

Aleu said:


> They wouldn't be in complete isolation.



Then there is the chance that they can kill again. Heck, there is a museum in California of all the home made weapons that inmates have used to kill other inmates. I remember one was a homemade crossbow, which killed a guard walking by the cell.

The fact is, inmates kill other inmates, so a life sentence isn't enough sometimes. Some people are just to dangerous.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Except that keeping a person in complete isolation forever is deemed by many inhumane and torture.  And then you run into the problem of inmate suicide from that physiological torture, in which the prison can be sued for (its happened), costing more taxpayer money. And I will add, what you suggest just isn't possible unless you just lock them in a cell and basically forget about them (except to give them food and water). Kinda like a forget-me-not from the medieval ages. With a modern application.


 
You don't have to subject someone to solitary, just put them in single-occupancy cells, and move them singly for showers and such.  As long as they can still talk to other prisoners and have a regular day-night cycle and maybe a radio or books they won't go insane.

In solitary confinement, they spend their entire time in a windowless cell with solid concrete walls and a steel door with no bars to see through, no furniture and a light that's on constantly.  The light wrecks their circadian rhythm, they can't have a radio, books, or anything, food is pushed through a slot that only opens at feeding time, guards are told never to respond, etc.  That's the shit that turns brains to goo.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop them from murdering people constantly while in prison?



Er, *competent prison guards and supermax prison security procedures*? Like _the ones currently in force to stop gang members who aren't on death row from killing each other?_

There's _already_ processes to separate and control violent inmates.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You don't have to subject someone to solitary, just put them in single-occupancy cells, and move them singly for showers and such.  As long as they can still talk to other prisoners and have a regular day-night cycle and maybe a radio or books they won't go insane.



And that still puts them in contact with people. Look to my post about the museum that houses homemade prison weapons, guards have been killed just walking past a cell from them.



> In solitary confinement, they spend their entire time in a windowless cell with solid concrete walls and a steel door with no bars to see through, no furniture and a light that's on constantly.  The light wrecks their circadian rhythm, they can't have a radio, books, or anything, food is pushed through a slot that only opens at feeding time, guards are told never to respond, etc.  That's the shit that turns brains to goo.


 And that's what you would have to do to make sure they they don't get the chance to kill again (ADX Supermax prison). But as I said, that's deemed by many as inhumane and torture. So, unless we want to go that route, there will always be the risk for an inmate to kill again.



Mayfurr said:


> Er, *competent prison guards and supermax prison security procedures*? Like _the ones currently in force to stop gang members who aren't on death row from killing each other?_



Some of the best known prisons have quite the record of inmates killing inmates.

San Quintin is widely known as a dangerous prison. Along with Pelican Bay (state prison). ADX Florence Supermax Facility was built specifically for the people I am talking about. Its the most dangerous supermax prison in America. And many would call it inhumane, as the people are put in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in barren cells that have solid steel doors except for the slot for food. And have little to no contact from the guards Many have killed themselves in that prison because of the psychological torture.



> There's _already_ processes to separate and control violent inmates.


Which doesn't work the way it should. Its all good in theory, but go look up what a prison riot looks like in a heavy security prison.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And that still puts them in contact with people. Look to my post about the museum that houses homemade prison weapons, guards have been killed just walking past a cell from them.



Yes because when they're only given food and water then they can still kill people :V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And that still puts them in contact with people. Look to my post about the museum that houses homemade prison weapons, guards have been killed just walking past a cell from them.


 
They'd have to _really_ work at it, and luck out with the incompetence of the guards, just to have a chance of killing someone you'd have already had offed outside of this hypothetical anyways.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 24, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Yes because when they're only given food and water then they can still kill people :V


Three words, plastic food tray.

Have you ever seen the weapons an inmate can fashion out of the plastic tray his food comes on?



Lobar said:


> They'd have to _really_ work at it, and luck  out with the incompetence of the guards, just to have a chance of  killing someone you'd have already had offed outside of this  hypothetical anyways.



Its still happened. So regardless of how hypothetical it is, it has occured. So, you cannot say it can't happen.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 25, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its still happened. So regardless of how hypothetical it is, it has occured. So, you cannot say it can't happen.


 
Which doesn't nullify the fact that you're proposing killing them all to prevent them from possibly killing each other.  Your cure is worse than the disease.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 25, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> "Kill one; possibly save a thousand"  mentality
> 
> Either way we look at, both sides will argue the other is inhumane.


 
All the violent inmates should already be in their own block away from the general population.  Even if they MacGyver a crossbow out of the elastic in their underwear, they'd have no targets of opportunity that Rukh wouldn't have otherwise already had killed.


----------



## Xipoid (Sep 25, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Three words, plastic food tray.
> 
> Have you ever seen the weapons an inmate can fashion out of the plastic tray his food comes on?
> 
> Its still happened. So regardless of how hypothetical it is, it has occured. So, you cannot say it can't happen.




You want to protect the inmates by killing off some of the inmates (the deathrow crowd). Is that what you are saying? Also, could you list all of your justifications for taking the life of another?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 25, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Which doesn't nullify the fact that you're proposing killing them all to prevent them from possibly killing each other.  Your cure is worse than the disease.



I'd also like to know the motivation for the inmates killing guards/other inmates. Unless he thinks all killers kill for no god damn reason.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 25, 2011)

God fucking damn now I know what I'm writing my next damn debate/persuasion paper about

If I thought that for a moment something I said or wrote would turn people away from Rukh's line of thinking I would be proud of having accomplished something

I should be sleeping right now

fuck


----------



## Zaraphayx (Sep 25, 2011)

Tycho said:


> God fucking damn now I know what I'm writing my next damn debate/persuasion paper about
> 
> If I thought that for a moment something I said or wrote would turn people away from Rukh's line of thinking I would be proud of having accomplished something
> 
> ...




You make the assumption that silly things such as logic, reasoning, and facts can get in the way of something as important to people as their own dicks.

Personal Opinions.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 25, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Well that saying was proven false so I don't think it'd work.



The sentiment is there, nevertheless... replace flies with ants, and you'd have a match.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 25, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Some of the best known prisons have quite the record of inmates killing inmates.



The point is that having "for the term of their natural life" sentences instead of the death penalty *won't change what prisons already have to contend with* in terms of violent prisoners. Adding death-row types into the "lifer" prisoner pool won't make a scrap of difference to prison violence - and as others have pointed out, killing some prisoners to reduce the violence of others is no solution at all. You may as well decide to introduce the electric chair etc for crimes such as dope smoking...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 25, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Well that saying was proven false so I don't think it'd work.



http://xkcd.com/357/


----------



## Tycho (Sep 25, 2011)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

The DPIC site in general is a good thing to read through.

I want to make a poll related to this subject but I fear another death penalty thread might be viewed as redundant.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 25, 2011)

Xipoid said:


> You want to protect the inmates by killing off some of the inmates (the deathrow crowd). Is that what you are saying? Also, could you list all of your justifications for taking the life of another?



Should they be given a chance to kill again? Are you saying that "well it serves them right that they got killed in prison"? Isn't that inhumane?

Anyways my justifications:

*Deterrent effect:*

The argument that states that the death penatly doesn't deter murder would require we eliminate all prisons. Because the prison system doesn't seem to be that much of a deterrent to crime itself. I don't know if people in here have made the following argument, but its another one that is common. Many people state that, states with the death penalty have a higher crime rate and use that as a reason why the death penalty should be abolished. The problem with this argument that every state in the U.S is different. Populations, cities, and crime rates are all different. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have a higher crime rate than states that are mostly un-urbanized.  States that have the death penatly are compelled to because of their higher crime rates, not the other way around.

Anti death penatly people also hold the notion that criminals do not fear death. If this was true, then how do police manage to arrest criminals without killing them? When a police officer holds a criminal at gunpoint and orders them to get on the ground, the criminal will do this in the vast majority of cases. Why would they do this if they were not afraid of lethal force? 

Now, lets look at some statistics here. Is everyone aware that the death penalty was temporarily halted in the 1970s? Researchers were able to gather a massive amount of data from across the country during this.

1960: 56 executions and 9,140 murders.
1964: 15 executions and 9,250 murders.
1969: 0 executions and 14,590 murders.
1975: (5 years after no executions) 20,510 murders.
1980: (only 2 executions had occurred from 1976 and 1980) 23,040 murders.

So, from 1965 to 1980, the number of murders in the U.S went from 9,960 to 23,040. A 131% increase. The murder rate doubled from 5.1 to 10.2 (murder rate is per 100,000 people). So the number of murders rose significantly as the number of executions decreased.

Karl Spence of Texas A&M said it best:
_"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face  down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the  contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has  been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have  killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight  crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a  criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."_

From 1995-2000 there were on average 71 executions per year. A huge increase over the 1960-1985 time period. The murder rate dropped from 10.2 in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999, a 44% reduction. In the year 2000 the murder rate was at its lowest since 1966.

In 2003 professors at Emory University stated that each execution deters on average 18 homicides.

The Illinois moratorium in 2000 on the death penalty led to an addition of 150 murders over 4 years following. This study was done in 2006 by the University of Houston.

Clearly the death penalty is a deterrent.

*Death Penalty VS Life Sentences*:

People in here claim there are alternatives to the death penalty. Life sentences and life sentences without parole. People say these serve just as well. Your forgetting some key information. Just as their are mistakes when using the death penalty and an innocent man or woman can be killed (which is horrible) the same argument can be used that a lifer can accidentally be released from prison. 

The argument only works when you ignore the amount of murders or attempted murders that happen within the prison system. And when you forget that prisoners have escaped. You also forget that laws and parole boards can change with time. I will give an example.

In 1962, James Moore raped and killed 14 year old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided that Moore should be spared the death penalty on the condition he got life without parole. Later on, thanks to the changes in law, in 1982 Moore was up for parole every 2 years. Fantastic. According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months. Again, fantastic...

Here is another example;

In 1966 Ken McDuff was convicted of shooting 2 boys to death and the horrendous rape strangulation of their 16 year old female companion. A Forth Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die by electric chair. A sentence that was commuted to life in 1972 as the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed. In 1989 with prisons overflowing and state officials under fire, McDuff was quietly released into the public.

Within days a naked body was found. Sarafia Parker who was 31 had been beaten, strangled, and dumped in a field. McDuff's freedom was briefly interrupted for a minor racial incident. He went back into the system and was out in 1990. 

 In early 1991, McDuff enrolled at Texas State Technical College in Waco. Soon, Central Texas prostitutes began disappearing. Valencia Joshua, 22, was last seen alive Feb. 24, 1991.  Her naked, decomposed body later was discovered in a shallow grave in  woods behind the college. Another of the missing women, Regenia Moore,  was last seen kicking and screaming in the cab of McDuff's pickup truck. Three more bodies also surfaced in the following months. On May 4th 1992 McDuff was arrested in Kansas City.

Now, if this man had been executed as planned. All of those women would have been saved (9 in total). In 1998 Mcduff was finally executed.

This is not a one off case. It has happened many times, where someone gets released only to brutally kill again.

This is why there is no substitue for the death penatly. In not only forever bars murders from killing again, it also prevents parole boards and new laws to give them a chance to strike again.

*Death Penalty and its costs.


*Many people make the claim that death penalty cases cost more than LWOP (Life Without Parole) because of appeals and such ($2 million per case estimated). Probelm is LWOP costs $1.2-$3.6 million more per case according to JFA (Justice For All). LWOP criminals face on average 30-40 years incarcerated. The annual costs for this is $40,000-$50,000 or more (the 40k-to 50k is a low estimate). 
There is no question that death penatly cases cost more uprfront, but over time, LWOP cases end up costing more. 


*Conclusion:
*
When a society/nation/government ignore its moral duty to defend the safety and security of its citizens and leaves them at the mercy of criminals, they are not being civilized. They are being negligent.
There will come a time when nations of the world will be forced to agree that like the military, police force, and taxes, is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of every nation/society and it will no longer be a question whether or not the death penalty should be allowed, but how it should be used.

I believe that executions have a deterrent effect. There remains one great virtue, the recidivism rate for capital punishment is zero. No executed murderer has ever killed again. You cannot say that about those sentenced to prison, even if you disagree with the death penalty.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 25, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Deterrent effect:*



As with everything death penalty, the Death Penalty Information Center has an excellent page on the research into deterrence. 



> Now, lets look at some statistics here. Is everyone aware that the death penalty was temporarily halted in the 1970s? Researchers were able to gather a massive amount of data from across the country during this.
> 
> 1960: 56 executions and 9,140 murders.
> 1964: 15 executions and 9,250 murders.
> ...



Fun fact: states that neither abolished nor reinstated the death penalty saw the same shifts in murders as in states that actually changed their death penalty status. Why would the availability of the death penalty in one state affect murder rates in another state with no death penalty? You are making a straight-up boneheaded correlation equals causation argument by assuming that any trend is attributable to executions. 



> In 2003 professors at Emory University stated that each execution deters on average 18 homicides.
> 
> The Illinois moratorium in 2000 on the death penalty led to an addition of 150 murders over 4 years following. This study was done in 2006 by the University of Houston.



Pretty much every study showing the death penalty as a deterrent is debunked by the Donohue and Wolfers article.




> Many people make the claim that death penalty cases cost more than LWOP (Life Without Parole) because of appeals and such ($2 million per case estimated). Probelm is LWOP costs $1.2-$3.6 million more per case according to JFA (Justice For All). LWOP criminals face on average 30-40 years incarcerated. The annual costs for this is $40,000-$50,000 or more (the 40k-to 50k is a low estimate).
> There is no question that death penatly cases cost more uprfront, but over time, LWOP cases end up costing more.



Justice for All isn't a source. Where the fuck is this even from?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> As with everything death penalty, the Death Penalty Information Center has an excellent page on the research into deterrence.


And? There are studies that say the death penalty if good and there are studies that say the death penalty are bad. 




> Fun fact: states that neither abolished nor reinstated the death penalty saw the same shifts in murders as in states that actually changed their death penalty status. Why would the availability of the death penalty in one state affect murder rates in another state with no death penalty? You are making a straight-up boneheaded correlation equals causation argument by assuming that any trend is attributable to executions.


How then do you explain during the time that the death penalty was on hold *across the entire country* that murders increased. And when it was reinstated the murder rate dropped? This isn't about individual states, this is when the entire country put executions on hold from 1972-1976.



> Pretty much every study showing the death penalty as a deterrent is debunked by the Donohue and Wolfers article.


Well, my computer for some reason won't download the PDF at the moment, so I will have to read it sometime later.



> Justice for All isn't a source. Where the fuck is this even from?


http://www.jfa.net/, if you had used Google and looked them up, you would have found their webpage.

I also notice how you had nothing to say about my argument against death penatly vs life sentence. And again, you cannot deny the fact that no murderer that has been executed has killed again. You can't say the same for those given life sentences.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 25, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> How then do you explain during the time that the death penalty was on hold *across the entire country* that murders increased. And when it was reinstated the murder rate dropped? This isn't about individual states, this is when the entire country put executions on hold from 1972-1976.



I hope you realize that the death penalty is not the sole determinant of the number of murders, that is to say that there are trends independent from the death penalty that affect the number of murders. When you attribute an increase in murders to the abolition of the death penalty in a given state, a natural control is presented by those states which never had a death penalty to begin with. What you will find is that the murder statistic changed by a similar percentage regardless of whether the state actually had a death penalty to abolish. I shouldn't need to spell it out to you what this means.



> http://www.jfa.net/, if you had used Google and looked them up, you would have found their webpage.



Justice for All is a highly biased non-profit, not an academic source. I had assumed you were thinking of something credible.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 25, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> http://xkcd.com/357/



I *WAS* in fact thinking of that comic, hehe


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 25, 2011)

Hey, I remember posting some facts about how the rate of crime is HIGHER in states with the death penalty, let me go find it

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

There we are

Suddenly Ruhk's entire argument is invalidated. By facts

Like fox news

Seriously guys, killing people is bad. You guys say you know that because you're using it as justification, but obviously not because of what you are justifying. Protip: if you kill someone, then that is murder. If you kill someone because they were a murderer then you become a hypocrite (because, if you were paying attention, they killed someone, and then you killed them for killing someone)

But you guys want it to be within the law for YOU yourself to be allowed to call for someone's death, without retribution at all. You guys want it so that you can say "Yes I believe this man's presence on this earth is inconveniencing me to the point where I would like him to stop living", actually have it HAPPEN, and then get away with it. You want to get away with taking away a life

My question to you would be, what are the discrepancies between enacting capital punishment and hiring a hit man

and don't just say "One's within the law" (that's not an argument)


----------



## Telnac (Sep 25, 2011)

OK, you guys changed my mind.  Death penalty for all offenders.  Cop pulls you over for doing 57 in a 55 zone... _*BAM*_, on the spot execution.  Since your passengers are accessories to your crime, a bullet for each of them too.  _*NO *_exceptions.  We can't risk your 5 year old brother growing up after seeing your bad example and becoming a speeder himself, can we?

Think of all the lives that will be saved!  No more jails.  No more criminals killing criminals.  No more lengthy & costly prosecutions.  And hey, we get population control as a bonus!

 </epic sarcasm>


Seriously, the justice system has its flaws.  Yeah, criminals have found ways to fashion clever weapons out of things they have access to.  When such weapons are discovered or used, the jail adjusts their training and procedures.  The criminals have to find new ways to do brutal things to each other.  Does it suck?  Yeah, but what's the alternative?

If jails just train criminals to be better criminals, saying we should just kill the worst of them sends us down a path where there is no good exit. We should prosecute murderers the same regardless of who their victim is.  But what about violent inmates who haven't killed... yet? Should we throw up our hands, say they can't be rehabilitated and treat them like murderers too?  That makes as little sense as executing someone for doing 57 in a 55 zone.

Separating them from the general population is the only thing that makes sense.  Yeah, housing inmates in Death Row-like conditions is cruel.  Yeah, you can probably say it's torture.  That said, we try to give them as much interaction as possible, but the safety of other inmates and the safety of the prison guards has to take priority here.  We can restrict their ability to do anything so much that the chance of them being able to kill is so small as to be laughable.  If you're going to claim that doing so is inhumane and torturous, I ask you: what's a better solution?  Letting them back into the general population, where they can possibly kill someone? Executing them (keep in mind that they haven't killed anyone yet)?  Or showing them that you're serious about keeping the other inmates and the prison guards safe, so they might learn from their mistake and not repeat it in the future?


[Edit]
Rukh, whoever says that death penalty cases cost only $2mil on average is probably fudging the numbers to try to claim it's cheaper to execute someone than putting them behind bars w/o parole.  Most sites I've seen have quoted average costs of $10mil or up, which is far more expensive than imprisoning them w/o parole.  Example:
NY - The estimated costs for New Yorkâ€™s death penalty, which was  reinstated in 1995: $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each  person sentenced to death, with no executions likely for many years. [SIZE=-1](_The Times Union_, Sept. 22, 2003)[/SIZE]​
As for the chance that laws can change: that's why voters have to remain vigilant and strike down any politician who's stupid enough to propose letting convicted murderers loose.  If prisons are overcrowded, we need politician who can articulate the need for more prisons to the public and who have the balls to fight to get them built.  We don't need politicians who think letting rapists and murderers loose is a good "cost cutting" measure.

​


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 26, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And? There are studies that say the death penalty if good and there are studies that say the death penalty are bad.
> [...]
> http://www.jfa.net/, if you had used Google and looked them up, you would have found their webpage.



Funny, I just tried accessing that JFA URL and got... a blank page.

Says it all, really. I think I'll go with the DPIC source that has actual content.

And I would also consider the views of one of the last British executioners Albert Pierrepoint, the man who executed over 400 people including 202 German war criminals after WW2 - a man who *actually had to get his hands dirty in executing people:*



			
				Albert Pierrepoint said:
			
		

> I have come to the conclusion that *executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic* of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people... *The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off.* (emphasis added)


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Seriously guys, killing people is bad. You guys say you know that because you're using it as justification, but obviously not because of what you are justifying. Protip: if you kill someone, then that is murder. If you kill someone because they were a murderer then you become a hypocrite (because, if you were paying attention, they killed someone, and then you killed them for killing someone)



You do realize, by your logic, that if someone kidnaps another person and holds them against their will in a personal prison, and then is sent to prison, we're being hypocritical too right?  It's wrong for them to do it, but it's okay for us as a society to hold people against their will.  Consistency.  :V



> But you guys want it to be within the law for YOU yourself to be allowed to call for someone's death, without retribution at all. You guys want it so that you can say "Yes I believe this man's presence on this earth is inconveniencing me to the point where I would like him to stop living", actually have it HAPPEN, and then get away with it. You want to get away with taking away a life



As you recall my calls for the death penalty have been for those who've killed inside prison as well as those who've killed multiple people.  That person's presence isn't inconveniencing me, but he HAS inconvenienced multiple people by ending their lives.  I'm not getting away with anything by saying that someone may deserve the death penalty, just as me voicing my opinion that I think a school kid deserves to have soda machines on campus means I'm responsible for someone's diabetes.  It's a stretch is what I'm getting at.



> My question to you would be, what are the discrepancies between enacting capital punishment and hiring a hit man
> 
> and don't just say "One's within the law" (that's not an argument)



Capital Punishment in theory works as a means to ensure that someone who has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a danger to society and has contempt for human life is effectively stopped from continuing to be a burden on the state and the people therein.  You can effectively see that through my conditions of multiple murders and murder whilst incarcerated.

And we keep talking about people using weapons to kill inmates in prison, but most prison murders occur by people using the weapons they were born with, namely their hands and legs.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You do realize, by your logic, that if someone kidnaps another person and holds them against their will in a personal prison, and then is sent to prison, we're being hypocritical too right?  It's wrong for them to do it, but it's okay for us as a society to hold people against their will.  Consistency.  :V


Alright, perhaps I should have focused more on how Murder is unforgivable. My point should have been that killing someone for killing someone else makes you just as bad. Incarceration for me is obviously different; jailing this person will help them to rehabilitate. I know that the jail system focuses on retribution over rehabilitation. This is a problem





			
				Term said:
			
		

> As you recall my calls for the death penalty have been for those who've killed inside prison as well as those who've killed multiple people.  That person's presence isn't inconveniencing me, but he HAS inconvenienced multiple people by ending their lives.  I'm not getting away with anything by saying that someone may deserve the death penalty, just as me voicing my opinion that I think a school kid deserves to have soda machines on campus means I'm responsible for someone's diabetes.  It's a stretch is what I'm getting at.


The prisoner should not be able to end the life of more than one. This is a problem with the jail system if they are placed in the proper conditions to reoffend

Every student throwing rocks at the child is equally responsible. If your word as a collective decides to end another's life, then you are one of many little drops of water that drowns him



			
				Term said:
			
		

> Capital Punishment in theory works as a means to ensure that someone who has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a danger to society and has contempt for human life is effectively stopped from continuing to be a burden on the state and the people therein.  You can effectively see that through my conditions of multiple murders and murder whilst incarcerated.



They are a bigger burden when murdered, due to the amount of money it requires

and also it's murder


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Alright, perhaps I should have focused more on how Murder is unforgivable. My point should have been that killing someone for killing someone else makes you just as bad. Incarceration for me is obviously different; jailing this person will help them to rehabilitate. I know that the jail system focuses on retribution over rehabilitation. This is a problem



I'm not going to repeat myself, but go back to my reply to Tycho a couple of pages back.  Prisons do offer outlets for inmates to turn their lives around including getting a high school and college education.  It's up to them to attend classes and so forth.




> The prisoner should not be able to end the life of more than one. This is a problem with the jail system if they are placed in the proper conditions to reoffend



But it happens.  And it happens more often than you think.  The prison system right now seems to take a page out of the Catholic Church's notebook on how to deal with troublesome priests.  Instead of terminating their association with the offender, they simply move them to another institution where they can still cause problems.  The only way you can effectively stop someone from not re-offending in this instance would to keep them in 23-hour solitary confinement.  And we've already discussed the link between psychological torture and prolonged periods of time in solitary confinement.



> Every student throwing rocks at the child is equally responsible. If your word as a collective decides to end another's life, then you are one of many little drops of water that drowns him



Trying to blanket responsibility of someone's death is a downright childish argument and an attempt to make proponents of the death penalty feel personally responsible for someone's actions when in reality they're not.  I'm no more responsible for someone's death by execution than you are for the death of an inmate killed by someone serving a life sentence.



> They are a bigger burden when murdered, due to the amount of money it requires


 
I'd propose that when clear evidence is presented where an inmate killed another, which there is ample amount of given how many cameras exist in a prison and all the viral videos you can see, right now, of inmates killing or seriously injuring other inmates, I'd say that execution in this case would be moved up.  A great deal of what makes the cost of executions go up is the amount of legal fees going towards trying to repeal the execution.  If it becomes policy that killing inmates in prison can result in an expedited death penalty sentence, it would greatly reduce costs.  Certainly moreso than building more prisons to shuffle violent inmates around would.



> and also it's murder



I've been advocating the execution of those who've clearly shown no remorse for their actions to get incarcerated and a continued lack of respect for human life whilst in prison.

You and others are advocating mental torture on these same people.

Who's the bigger monster here?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Trying to blanket responsibility of someone's death is a downright childish argument and an attempt to make proponents of the death penalty feel personally responsible for someone's actions when in reality they're not.  I'm no more responsible for someone's death by execution than you are for the death of an inmate killed by someone serving a life sentence.



I read this as "I decided that this person should die but I'm not responsible at all and you're childish for even thinking that"

If you're going to advocate their death at least be open about it



			
				Term said:
			
		

> I'd propose that when clear evidence is presented where an inmate killed another, which there is ample amount of given how many cameras exist in a prison and all the viral videos you can see, right now, of inmates killing or seriously injuring other inmates, I'd say that execution in this case would be moved up.  A great deal of what makes the cost of executions go up is the amount of legal fees going towards trying to repeal the execution.  If it becomes policy that killing inmates in prison can result in an expedited death penalty sentence, it would greatly reduce costs.  Certainly moreso than building more prisons to shuffle violent inmates around would.



Bluh bluh

I agree that moving from one prison to the next is not a suitable response to in-prison killing, but "Just kill him he's too much effort" isn't quite an adequate response either. There are medications out there that will curb aggressive tendencies. Put them on it and slowly ween them off once they learn to control themselves; treat the prisoner like any other human being with over aggressiveness.



			
				term said:
			
		

> You and others are advocating mental torture...



???


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> I read this as "I decided that this person should die but I'm not responsible at all and you're childish for even thinking that"
> 
> If you're going to advocate their death at least be open about it



Um, I didn't decide anything.  I wasn't involved in the case.  I'm of the opinion that someone who commits murders whilst in prison should receive the death penalty.  I'm not hiding that I'm a supporter of this usage of the death penalty.  You're trying to make it seem like I'm personally responsible for issuing his death penalty.  Which I'm not and I challenge you to link me as personally responsible for someone's execution.  I want transcripts of me during the trial where I personally issued the death penalty.  If you can't provide that, the idea that I'm responsible is negated.



> Bluh bluh



Seems a bit unnecessary.  I thought we were having a constructive conversation.  No need to start getting insulting.



> I agree that moving from one prison to the next is not a suitable response to in-prison killing, but "Just kill him he's too much effort" isn't quite an adequate response either. There are medications out there that will curb aggressive tendencies. Put them on it and slowly ween them off once they learn to control themselves; treat the prisoner like any other human being with over aggressiveness.



My argument isn't that it's too much effort to keep him from killing inmates, but that you can't reasonably do so without bringing in more ethical questions, one of which I will address below since you clearly haven't read some of the finer points of this thread.

The proposal of medication I'll address here however.  You're not going to be able to force medication on these guys nor are you going to be able to do so while having them living with other inmates.  Drugging violent inmates and keeping them in solitary confinement is not a recipe for success in calming down inmates.  Also take into account that there's no such thing as an FDA-approved anti-aggression medication, and that psychiatric drugs like anti-anxiety medication can lead to aggressive behavior means that forcibly medicating our inmates poses even more of a danger to other inmates as well as ethical questions.



> ???



Again, the idea of separating inmates and throwing them in solitary IS considered a type of torture.  But now I can also throw you advocating drugging inmates to the list.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybby, maybe you need to learn the difference between killing and murder is.

Killing is lawfully ending a life.
Murder is the UNLAWFUL ending of a life.
So unless an inmate was executed in a state that does not allow executions, executions are not murder.
Now, please less appeal to emotion with incorrect definitions? Really, it's like facing against a pro-lifer saying that anyone pro-choice are pro-baby killers/infanticide or whatever. Really hard to take you seriously when you do that.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Killing is lawfully ending a life.
> Murder is the UNLAWFUL ending of a life.


Since when? -.-


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Um, I didn't decide anything.  I wasn't involved in the case.  I'm of the opinion that someone who commits murders whilst in prison should receive the death penalty.  I'm not hiding that I'm a supporter of this usage of the death penalty.  You're trying to make it seem like I'm personally responsible for issuing his death penalty.  Which I'm not and I challenge you to link me as personally responsible for someone's execution.  I want transcripts of me during the trial where I personally issued the death penalty.  If you can't provide that, the idea that I'm responsible is negated.



I just feel that whenever people say "I support this being in place", they're the reason why it's still there. If the majority was against then we wouldn't have it anymore



			
				Term said:
			
		

> Seems a bit unnecessary.  I thought we were having a constructive conversation.  No need to start getting insulting.


Bluh is a word of frustration, similar to "urgh" or "bleh". I meant it more to mean that I was frustrated with the tough situation this debate is for me with my morality; It's tough to come up with the perfect solution. It looks like "Blah", but I didn't mean that at all, sorry. Frustrated more with the situation than the people involved





			
				term said:
			
		

> My argument isn't that it's too much effort to keep him from killing inmates, but that you can't reasonably do so without bringing in more ethical questions, one of which I will address below since you clearly haven't read some of the finer points of this thread.
> 
> The proposal of medication I'll address here however.  You're not going to be able to force medication on these guys nor are you going to be able to do so while having them living with other inmates.  Drugging violent inmates and keeping them in solitary confinement is not a recipe for success in calming down inmates.  Also take into account that there's no such thing as an FDA-approved anti-aggression medication, and that psychiatric drugs like anti-anxiety medication can lead to aggressive behavior means that forcibly medicating our inmates poses even more of a danger to other inmates as well as ethical questions.



Last I checked, Psychiatrists issue pills to their patients which affect serotonin levels, effectively numbing excess emotion (administered to depressives and the like)

And I never brought up solitary confinement





			
				Term said:
			
		

> But now I can also throw you advocating drugging inmates to the list.



Words in my mouth

and

offering medication to the sick isn't really that big a sin



Aleu said:


> Tybby, maybe you need to learn the difference between killing and murder is.
> 
> Killing is lawfully ending a life.
> Murder is the UNLAWFUL ending of a life.



No. This is bad

Lawful does NOT equate to "good"

The taliban, the north korean government, the chinese government, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc etc etc

All their executions are and were lawful

and yet they were and are all acts of murder

Gay marriage is unlawful in most states. So is abortion

The government should NOT define your morality. What they say is right isn't always. In this case they are structuring the Judicial system to favor retribution over rehabilitation


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 26, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Killing is lawfully ending a life.
> Murder is the UNLAWFUL ending of a life.



Wow, for once you and I agree on something.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Since when? -.-


Since, uh, the laws dictate?



Tybalt Maxwell said:


> No. This is bad
> 
> Lawful does NOT equate to "good"
> 
> ...



Excuse me but WHERE did I say it was good? I just said LAWFUL. LAW =/= MORAL/GOOD.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Excuse me but WHERE did I say it was good? I just said LAWFUL. LAW =/= MORAL/GOOD.



You responded to my post against ending other peoples lives

with the differences between murder and "killing"

The implication I got was that you were disagreeing with me, stating that murder is wrong and killing is okay

I'm kind of confused as to why else you would post what you did


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> You responded to my post against ending other peoples lives
> 
> with the differences between murder and "killing"
> 
> ...



You were saying that killing = murder which is incorrect. One is lawful and one is not. Maybe if you READ THE TEXT AFTER THAT instead of CLIPPING IT OUT then maybe you'd get it. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> I just feel that whenever people say "I support this being in place", they're the reason why it's still there. If the majority was against then we wouldn't have it anymore



I support a lot of things.  I support mandatory vaccines for HPV, measles, etc.  I support a woman's right to choose.  By no means am I ever going to take responsibility for keeping those things in place.  So why on Earth am I suddenly supposed to take responsibility for the death penalty as an option for the most extreme offenders?



> Bluh is a word of frustration, similar to "urgh" or "bleh". I meant it more to mean that I was frustrated with the tough situation this debate is for me with my morality; It's tough to come up with the perfect solution. It looks like "Blah", but I didn't mean that at all, sorry. Frustrated more with the situation than the people involved



Fair enough.  I did take it as a means of saying "Blah blah."



> Last I checked, Psychiatrists issue pills to their patients which affect serotonin levels, effectively numbing excess emotion (administered to depressives and the like)



And a lot of those pills still have side-effects.  Among those is making someone's condition worsen.  Psychiatric medications have been linked to increased agression, depression, and suicidal tendencies.  Throw these things into a prison setting and the outcome looks dire.



> Words in my mouth
> 
> and
> 
> offering medication to the sick isn't really that big a sin



You're advocating using drugs to calm inmates, and then you want to take them off their medication.

How can this possibly be a good idea?  Weening them off or not.  And again, if they had adverse reactions to the drug in question, you've effectively made the situation worse than it was before.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Aleu said:


> You were saying that killing = murder which is incorrect. One is lawful and one is not. Maybe if you READ THE TEXT AFTER THAT instead of CLIPPING IT OUT then maybe you'd get it. :V



After that all you said was "so unless the state is against executions then it's not murder" and then told me to stop appealing to emotion

I still don't quite see what you're getting at. You're telling me to stop calling it murder because it's within the law (even though "murder" applies to the taking of another persons life, regardless of lawful standing). I don't understand what these semantics have to do with the topic at hand



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I support a lot of things. I support mandatory vaccines for HPV, measles, etc. I support a woman's right to choose. By no means am I ever going to take responsibility for keeping those things in place. So why on Earth am I suddenly supposed to take responsibility for the death penalty as an option for the most extreme offenders?



Fine, you only support them in spirit then. Good great wonderful




			
				term said:
			
		

> And a lot of those pills still have side-effects. Among those is making someone's condition worsen. Psychiatric medications have been linked to increased agression, depression, and suicidal tendencies. Throw these things into a prison setting and the outcome looks dire.



Then I guess we better invest in better pills then, because the alternative is killing inmates. Free men with these ailments are suffering anyway



			
				term said:
			
		

> You're advocating using drugs to calm inmates, and then you want to take them off their medication.
> 
> How can this possibly be a good idea? Weening them off or not. And again, if they had adverse reactions to the drug in question, you've effectively made the situation worse than it was before.



I'm advocating giving inmates the choice to take pills that will calm them, as an alternative to dying. Any alternative is great. Therapy of any kind, whatever. When the alternative is the noose, I think we can put a little bit more effort into making things better.

It should be noted that the practice of giving and then weening off of medication is a common practice (from my understanding, I slept through most of my psych class), used on patients who are free. If it's a good idea in the outside world, it's a good idea on the inside too

I am also well aware that miracle pills do not exist


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> After that all you said was "so unless the state is against executions then it's not murder" and then told me to stop appealing to emotion
> 
> I still don't quite see what you're getting at. You're telling me to stop calling it murder because it's within the law (even though *"murder" applies to the taking of another persons life, regardless of lawful standing)*. I don't understand what these semantics have to do with the topic at hand



NO, it DOESN'T. That's the definition of murder. Unlawful ending of a life. Stop referring to executions as murder. Because they are not.
If you want to say they are immoral. Be my guest. However, not murder.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Aleu said:


> NO, it DOESN'T. That's the definition of murder. Unlawful ending of a life. Stop referring to executions as murder. Because they are not.
> If you want to say they are immoral. Be my guest. However, not murder.



[h=3]Noun[/h]*murder* (_plural_ *murders*)

(_countable_) An act of deliberate killing of another human being._There have been ten unsolved *murders* this year alone._
(_uncountable_) (_law_) The crime of deliberate killing._The defendant was charged with *murder*._
(_uncountable_) _(When used as a predicative noun)_: Something terrible to endure._This headache is *murder*._
(_countable_) The collective noun for crows â€ƒ[quotations â–¼]


so ja


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Then I guess we better invest in better pills then, because the alternative is killing inmates. Free men with these ailments are suffering anyway



That's not really an answer.  :V

Investing in "better pills" is akin to the argument of investing in "better prisons".  That's a lot of money and a lot of hoops to hurdle in order to do that.  Considering that people have continually used the "cost" argument of the death penalty, they're more than willing to write a blank check as to creating alternatives which either don't work or have shown to make things worse.  Considering that everyone's body chemistry is different, to expect a wonder pill which has 0% chance of having adverse side effects, especially dealing with the chemistry of the brain, is ludicrous.



> I'm advocating giving inmates the choice to take pills that will calm them, as an alternative to dying. Any alternative is great. Therapy of any kind, whatever. When the alternative is the noose, I think we can put a little bit more effort into making things better.



If you gave inmates the choice, they'd choose not to be incarcerated at all.  :V

Therapy is mandatory for most normal inmates.  However, when someone is thrown into solitary confinement, as is the punishment for offenses such as fighting, drug smuggling, and so on, getting therapy isn't really an option.  Therapy also only goes so far.  You can't realistically expect a repeat offender to suddenly turn around in a therapy session, since more often than not those sessions would only really work for people who are buying into the idea of wanting to change.  But if you're serving a life sentence already, therapy really doesn't serve a purpose since no matter how mentally sound you may become, your ass is still going to die in prison one way or another.



> It should be noted that the practice of giving and then weening off of medication is a common practice (from my understanding, I slept through most of my psych class), used on patients who are free. If it's a good idea in the outside world, it's a good idea on the inside too



"The inside" is MUCH different than the outside world.  There are psychological pressures and anxieties that don't exist on the outside when you're incarcerated.  I seriously doubt that you can realistically expect that someone going through a drug treatment would fair just as well as if they were in that setting.  There's a lot more going on with these guys than just their mental chemistry.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Better pills, better prisons. If they help people, then they're worth the money. I'm not a pharmacologist, and I'm not a sociologist, I couldn't tell you how to make either

but

we live in a world of brilliant minds. I am convinced that we can find better ways to treat prisoners, better medications for the mentally ill, better methods of enforcing rehabilitation. To say that any of these is impossible is ludicrous

You yourself have pointed out the flaws inherent in the system. The alternative to killing people is putting effort into making things better. I believe we can find better alternatives. In Vancouver there was built a "radical" "house" style prison, where inmates were given a house to share with a few others on an island. Although the entire island was made up of inmates, they successfully created communities amongst themselves. I'll try to find the article. It said this system seemed much better for rehabilitation, but the controversy was on whether the inmates were being punished enough

This isn't the one I read (The one I read was about a prison within Canada, we got the article as part of an exam), but it seems close enough

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html

I'll try to find the one I read


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> *Noun*
> 
> *murder* (_plural_ *murders*)
> 
> ...



#2
 I bolded and underlined the KEY word there for you.
Also, exclusions from murder.

Oh hey, lookit. Capital punishment is among them :V


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

your link and post both pertain to one nuance of a word that, as you can plainly see, has four

Also while I'm posting I might as well explain the logic behind the island prisons:

Most re-offenses come from a failure to reintegrate with society. Because this prison functions as a community, inmates find it easier to get back into the flow of every day life once they are out. This is why the rate of re-offense is lower for this kind of prison. Think of what happened to the old guy in the Shawshank Redemption


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> I'll try to find the one I read



I'll wait to reply until you find it.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> your link and post both pertain to one nuance of a word that, as you can plainly see, has four


'Cept we're talking about law itt. About repealing something that is LEGAL. So the second definition is currently the only relevant one.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'll wait to reply until you find it.



The one I posted is pretty much the same thing, but I'll keep looking

Google is being a biiiiiitch

EDIT: I can't find it. Maybe it was Balstoy the article was talking about. I dunnooooooooooo

I only thought it was Canadian because we got it for our English exam and I could have sworn they mentioned Vancouver

but I guess not!




Aleu said:


> 'Cept we're talking about law itt. About repealing something that is LEGAL. So the second definition is currently the only relevant one.



Can we just agree to end this debate on semantics

because no matter who gives in it changes nothing within this thread

I'm sorry if my word choice offended you


----------



## Attaman (Sep 26, 2011)

I'm with Tybalt that there is very little difference between "execution" and "murder", besides one being sanctioned (overall, there are exceptions) by the state. Or, in other words, a glorified "hit". Mind, the problem here stems more from the fact that murder has an innate negative connotation. There are _some_ times that murder is not purely negative (note: I'm of the opinion that executions are rarely one of them).


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2011)

Attaman said:


> I'm with Tybalt that there is very little difference between "execution" and "murder", besides one being sanctioned (overall, there are exceptions) by the state. Or, in other words, a glorified "hit". Mind, the problem here stems more from the fact that murder has an innate negative connotation. There are _some_ times that murder is not purely negative (note: I'm of the opinion that executions are rarely one of them).



I suppose I'll have to better explain (duh) WHY I prefer murder = unlawful a bit more clearly. 
IMO, if murder was simply ending another life (such as killing is) then well, anything we kill would be murder. War would pretty much equate murder, manslaughter, those killing in self-defense, any slaughter house, etc which I don't really see as fair painting everyone with one brush.


Yes, I don't like the idea of an innocent person being condemned to death which is why capital punishment (i believe) should be reserved for serial killers. There's more evidence to go off of (unless they're Dexter or something), and shows that they really can't be rehabilitated.
Sometimes, a dog gotta be put down.

As for the cost, as someone mentioned earlier (can't remember who) executions aren't really that common and could take several years before they actually go through with it. Also, why not just have less jail time for druggies? SERIOUSLY. That could save up a good amount of money AND jail space.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Sep 26, 2011)

I would really like everyone to read that article I posted

It's an article written by someone who came to this island wanting to write a negative piece, and then being stunned into writing a more objective article after hearing some facts

here it is again for those who don't want to search. This is my proposed alternative to our current jail system, which is inadequate and breeds what some would deem necessity to implement the death penalty


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 26, 2011)

I suppose it would be worth noting that this thread, if you look at the number of posts and views, is an excellent indicator of why this issue is still hotly debated and has gone nowhere.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 27, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> After that all you said was "so unless the state is against executions then it's not murder" and then told me to stop appealing to emotion
> 
> I still don't quite see what you're getting at. You're telling me to stop calling it murder because it's within the law (even though "murder" applies to the taking of another persons life, regardless of lawful standing). I don't understand what these semantics have to do with the topic at hand
> 
> ...



Ahhh... that explains a lot.


----------

