This is Why I Support the Death Penalty

TDK1044 · 06-09-09, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Dead men do not make good repeat offenders.

living men do.

Innocent men who were wrongly killed didn't offend in the first place.

GoldenRivet · 06-09-09, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK1044

Innocent men who were wrongly killed didn't offend in the first place.

There is an appeals process.

they have X number of times to appeal their sentence and can serve X number of years in order for the defense to accumulate evidence which will clear their name.

Im not saying execute them right when the gavel bangs.

but there is no point in any of us paying millions of dollars to keep scum like this alive in a prison for 25 years.

August · 06-09-09, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

but there is no point in any of us paying millions of dollars to keep scum like this alive in a prison for 25 years.

I dunno GR. I don't think I'd really want cost to be a factor in sentencing.

GoldenRivet · 06-09-09, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I dunno GR. I don't think I'd really want cost to be a factor in sentencing.

well of course not... cost shouldnt be a factor in sentencing.

but august i want you to think of something.

spoke to a medic today about this very story... ok so here goes because this is gross.

you are a paramedic and you show up on the scene of an "unresponsive infant" call.

you examine the child and he has clearly been physically abused.

but how do you determine he has been "raped"?

the medic's answer was simple but disgusting.

"because the infants horribly mutilated, bloody wound of an anus will be stretched out to about 2 - 2.5 inches across.

"i've seen it before in baby boys AND baby girls." he said

THE GUILTY PARTY...

....DESERVES....

...TO DIE.

im sorry august but you cannot convince me that he deserves to sit in prison and watch TV/ play basketball and eat 3 square meals all day for the rest of his life on anyone's dollar.

August · 06-10-09, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

im sorry august but you cannot convince me that he deserves to sit in prison and watch TV/ play basketball and eat 3 square meals all day for the rest of his life on anyone's dollar.

Of course not, but the DP has never just been applied to such inhuman monsters. It has been repeatedly abused throughout human history by both governments and individuals and as such is just not something I want the state to be engaging in.

However, I do agree with you about living the good life in prison. Rather than giving said monsters a quick clean death, i'd much rather lock them up in a very small cell for the rest of their lives in solitary confinement and withOUT TV, books, newspapers or other amenities. They should have nothing but time to reflect on the crime that put them there and without outside input I think that time will be a heavy burden for them to bear.

In fact I think prison in general should be made as difficult and unpleasant as possible. Convicts should be worked like dogs every waking hour, if for no other reason than to make them so worn out that they won't have the energy left to prey on each other.

CaptainHaplo · 06-09-09, 08:25 PM

Alright, lets me see if I can put it easy points so they can be dealt with in a way that doesn't require linguistic playings....

The death penalty is not - and never has been - a punishment that is successful to dissuade a criminal from committing his capital crime. Contrary to what some death penalty advocates try and sing - its simply not factual. Most who choose to murder have lost the capability to value their own life, and thus they fail to value the life of others.

One can make the argument that its INTENT is that - but its effectiveness can be shown to be nil in the face of history. Look at every treasonous act committed by people to overthrow nobility, and you can see that the death penalty has NEVER been successful as a deterrent.

Thats one argument off the table.

Next is the issue of "moral" authority to kill. Well, currently it resides in the State, put there by society. You might not like it, but you have the choice to be active and try to change it - or not. The State is empowered - by the people - to judge guilt or innocence through a process. That process is SUPPOSED to be blind - and while one could argue back or forth if it is or not, the moral authority comes from society - so don't blame the state for what you have allowed to be put into place. The state holds that mandate at the will of the people, and if you doubt it - look what happens when a state's citizenry speak on the issue - for or against. You see moratoriums put in place - or lifted - at the will of the people. The state simply applies the law - the people are responsible for it. Like it or not. So if you don't like the "blood on your hands", then do something about it. But claiming that a State lacks the authority to act on the will of its society is a false argument. Another one bites the dust...

Thirdly - the question of when or if a capital crime deserves the death penalty. Again - justice in its purest form is blind. Think of the statue - a woman, blindfolded - with scales. The cost to the victim - was their life ended. Justice is for the criminal to suffer the same as the victim. Call it an eye for an eye if you want - but it is how we - as society - have said we want justice to be served. Yet killing in the way the victim died is often horrendous. So, that often would call for cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, in the interest of justice with some mercy - though not absolvement - a criminals life is ended in a manner that is - most of the time - much more peaceful than that the victim had to endure. This is the definition of justice with mercy for society. Is it warranted? According to just about every moral system ever codified, yes.

Lastly you have the issue of the innocent that pay the ultimate price. I once was told by a friend who was a defense attorney - that he would rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man in jail. That is a wonderful ideal, but we do not live in a utopian society. If we did, there would be no guilty - and all would be innocent - thus the question would be moot. So you have to consider not only the loss to the individual - but also to the rest of society if you allow 100 guilty to go free.

An innocent death is a tragedy. I recognize that and it saddens me to the core. Yet the DOJ's data says recidivism for violent felons was last closely tracked at 67.5%. So basically you let 100 murderers go to spare one innocent man - and guess what - you just killed 67 or 68 more people..... 1 innocent life - or 67? The system is NOT perfect, and should be reviewed regularly. However, the idea that the cost to society is higher to make a mistake and execute an innocent than it is to let murderers do free - is demonstratably flawed. I wish that my friend was around to argue the point, but one of the clients he got off on a murder charge later was responsible for his death....... So - its more than just statistics. He was a damned good man with a wife and kids - and didn't deserve to die just because he knew too much for a paranoid murderer to be comfortable sleeping at night.

After taking a deep breath - there is the final issue - the cost to society to keep these in prisons. The data a quick search showed was a study from Virginia - in which the amount was - per prisoner - $24,888 every year. Thats an average. Other states are likely similiar. That is more than the welfare cost for a single destitute person in society. See anything wrong with that? The fact that these people are going to continue to stay in jail - for the rest of their natural lives - and assuming a 3.5% annual inflation rate - in 20 years that amount totals 700k - in 40 years the cost to the taxpayers has now been 2.1 million. So its obvious that to continue to house a "lifer" is nothing but a wasted drain on the taxpayer's dime, that does no good. Contrast that with the cost of execution via lethal injection. Per the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - the 2007 cost was $86.08 - so the monetary cost of execution in a timely manner is obviously better than decades incarcerated.

Thus - the death penalty is a valid punishment, but only in the proper instances - and only if it balances the interest of justice for society regarding the common good as well as the rights of the innocent accused.

As I said - no system is perfect. We should reform ours.... but not take the death penalty off the table.

August · 06-09-09, 09:06 PM

A couple points Haplo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The death penalty is not - and never has been - a punishment that is successful to dissuade a criminal from committing his capital crime.

Yes there are people that have ignored the potential consequences of their actions, usually because they don't think they will be caught and sure there are those that don't care either way, but one thing is undeniable. The murderer that has been put to death will never murder again. What other criminal punishment can produce these results?

Quote:

Yet the DOJ's data says recidivism for violent felons was last closely tracked at 67.5%. So basically you let 100 murderers go to spare one innocent man - and guess what - you just killed 67 or 68 more people.....

You are stretching those statistics way beyond accuracy. First off "violent felons" includes a lot more crimes than just murder and nobody is advocating executing muggers, and recidivism among violent felons does not automatically mean they got out and committed murder so your "guess what" example does not hold water.

Skybird · 06-10-09, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

There is an appeals process.

they have X number of times to appeal their sentence and can serve X number of years in order for the defense to accumulate evidence which will clear their name.

The appeals process very often failed, and still fails. The numbers of death sentences proven to have been wrong, are telltaling. The system does not work precise and flawless enough to allow acceptance of terminal, irreversible "penalties". A residual risk for a false sentence remains in most court cases. That's why one should stay away from making irreversible sentences a regular routine. And I do not accept something like "I can live with 1 innocent killed per 5 criminals executed, that is a good rate, that's the price of justice."

What would be next?

CaptainHaplo · 06-10-09, 06:22 AM

August,

I am in agreement that the death penalty has its good points. My issue above regarding its use as a deterent is that the argument holds no water in a historical view. But I touched on recividism later, as you noted. I personally am fine with the death penalty, provided the process itself underwent a review.

As far as my taking statistics inaccurately, I noted that the stats were for violent felons - not murderers. There is no data quickly found on murder recividism. However, that means there is nothing to suggest that the percentage is somehow lower for the MOST VIOLENT kind of crime. Even if we cut that number in half - to 33% - your still talking 33 dead people....

I agree that the numbers could be viewed with some question on how it relates to murder - but even being generous with the idea that murderers that get out are somehow "rehabilitated" at twice the rate as muggers - your still looking at way too many innocents dead.

Simply put - I have no problem with a death for a death - provided the accused is given every REAL opportunity to true, blind justice. My objection to the Death Penalty as it is today - is that the system is currently flawed in a way where its doubtful that the trials in question are truly impartial.

06-10-09, 07:37 AM

Well we, along with a whole host of countries, don't have the death penalty and the last I looked our violent crime levels are not particularly high in comparison to the US. I think it would be fair to say that the death penalty doesn't work, it doesn't reduce violent crime.

If what you claim is true about recidivism there should be a lot of it here, but there isn't.

Wolfehunter · 06-10-09, 09:12 AM

I would support death penalties if these issues where solved first.

Government corruption.
Police state.
Bias, corrupted and racist laws.
Absolute proof!

Then I would consider death penalties worth while. Because there would be no margin of errors.

06-10-09, 09:29 AM

One theory is that in a way criminals who are caught and imprisoned should be viewed very much like disease carriers. They are isolated from the society when they are 'active' but once the disease has been cured they could re-join the society. The way it can be seen from a sociological viewpoint is that crime is like a disease or a social malaise and once we know what makes a criminal 'tick' we've learned something and that data can be used to prevent similar crimes from happening in the future, in a way creating a 'vaccine' against that particular crime.

IMO it is the sign of a societies strenght that it can take a criminal and make that person into a good citizen, not just kill him off in some horrid ceremony used to thirst some collective bloodlust akin to the ancient times when people were sacrificed to whatever diety.

I think people should be allowed to go with the 'biblical' rule, "eye for an eye" etc., that the death penalty represents. But then they shouldn't use any aspect of sociological sciences in their societies. Or any aspects of modern society. They should live like the Amish and kill off the criminals of their little backward community.

Aramike · 06-10-09, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well we, along with a whole host of countries, don't have the death penalty and the last I looked our violent crime levels are not particularly high in comparison to the US. I think it would be fair to say that the death penalty doesn't work, it doesn't reduce violent crime.

If what you claim is true about recidivism there should be a lot of it here, but there isn't.

I've had this discussion with several people professionally. There are many, many factors that contribute to violent crime rates, the least relevent of which is the death penalty. In many cases, it is cultural.

CaptainHaplo · 06-10-09, 07:17 PM

Not to mention - most murderers end up spending life in prison anyway. The issue then becomes is the expedience of termination before nature the proper option? But thats another question entirely.

06-09-09, 08:25 PM	#6
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Alright, lets me see if I can put it easy points so they can be dealt with in a way that doesn't require linguistic playings.... The death penalty is not - and never has been - a punishment that is successful to dissuade a criminal from committing his capital crime. Contrary to what some death penalty advocates try and sing - its simply not factual. Most who choose to murder have lost the capability to value their own life, and thus they fail to value the life of others. One can make the argument that its INTENT is that - but its effectiveness can be shown to be nil in the face of history. Look at every treasonous act committed by people to overthrow nobility, and you can see that the death penalty has NEVER been successful as a deterrent. Thats one argument off the table. Next is the issue of "moral" authority to kill. Well, currently it resides in the State, put there by society. You might not like it, but you have the choice to be active and try to change it - or not. The State is empowered - by the people - to judge guilt or innocence through a process. That process is SUPPOSED to be blind - and while one could argue back or forth if it is or not, the moral authority comes from society - so don't blame the state for what you have allowed to be put into place. The state holds that mandate at the will of the people, and if you doubt it - look what happens when a state's citizenry speak on the issue - for or against. You see moratoriums put in place - or lifted - at the will of the people. The state simply applies the law - the people are responsible for it. Like it or not. So if you don't like the "blood on your hands", then do something about it. But claiming that a State lacks the authority to act on the will of its society is a false argument. Another one bites the dust... Thirdly - the question of when or if a capital crime deserves the death penalty. Again - justice in its purest form is blind. Think of the statue - a woman, blindfolded - with scales. The cost to the victim - was their life ended. Justice is for the criminal to suffer the same as the victim. Call it an eye for an eye if you want - but it is how we - as society - have said we want justice to be served. Yet killing in the way the victim died is often horrendous. So, that often would call for cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, in the interest of justice with some mercy - though not absolvement - a criminals life is ended in a manner that is - most of the time - much more peaceful than that the victim had to endure. This is the definition of justice with mercy for society. Is it warranted? According to just about every moral system ever codified, yes. Lastly you have the issue of the innocent that pay the ultimate price. I once was told by a friend who was a defense attorney - that he would rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man in jail. That is a wonderful ideal, but we do not live in a utopian society. If we did, there would be no guilty - and all would be innocent - thus the question would be moot. So you have to consider not only the loss to the individual - but also to the rest of society if you allow 100 guilty to go free. An innocent death is a tragedy. I recognize that and it saddens me to the core. Yet the DOJ's data says recidivism for violent felons was last closely tracked at 67.5%. So basically you let 100 murderers go to spare one innocent man - and guess what - you just killed 67 or 68 more people..... 1 innocent life - or 67? The system is NOT perfect, and should be reviewed regularly. However, the idea that the cost to society is higher to make a mistake and execute an innocent than it is to let murderers do free - is demonstratably flawed. I wish that my friend was around to argue the point, but one of the clients he got off on a murder charge later was responsible for his death....... So - its more than just statistics. He was a damned good man with a wife and kids - and didn't deserve to die just because he knew too much for a paranoid murderer to be comfortable sleeping at night. After taking a deep breath - there is the final issue - the cost to society to keep these in prisons. The data a quick search showed was a study from Virginia - in which the amount was - per prisoner - $24,888 every year. Thats an average. Other states are likely similiar. That is more than the welfare cost for a single destitute person in society. See anything wrong with that? The fact that these people are going to continue to stay in jail - for the rest of their natural lives - and assuming a 3.5% annual inflation rate - in 20 years that amount totals 700k - in 40 years the cost to the taxpayers has now been 2.1 million. So its obvious that to continue to house a "lifer" is nothing but a wasted drain on the taxpayer's dime, that does no good. Contrast that with the cost of execution via lethal injection. Per the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - the 2007 cost was $86.08 - so the monetary cost of execution in a timely manner is obviously better than decades incarcerated. Thus - the death penalty is a valid punishment, but only in the proper instances - and only if it balances the interest of justice for society regarding the common good as well as the rights of the innocent accused. As I said - no system is perfect. We should reform ours.... but not take the death penalty off the table. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-10-09, 06:22 AM	#9
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	August, I am in agreement that the death penalty has its good points. My issue above regarding its use as a deterent is that the argument holds no water in a historical view. But I touched on recividism later, as you noted. I personally am fine with the death penalty, provided the process itself underwent a review. As far as my taking statistics inaccurately, I noted that the stats were for violent felons - not murderers. There is no data quickly found on murder recividism. However, that means there is nothing to suggest that the percentage is somehow lower for the MOST VIOLENT kind of crime. Even if we cut that number in half - to 33% - your still talking 33 dead people.... I agree that the numbers could be viewed with some question on how it relates to murder - but even being generous with the idea that murderers that get out are somehow "rehabilitated" at twice the rate as muggers - your still looking at way too many innocents dead. Simply put - I have no problem with a death for a death - provided the accused is given every REAL opportunity to true, blind justice. My objection to the Death Penalty as it is today - is that the system is currently flawed in a way where its doubtful that the trials in question are truly impartial. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-10-09, 09:12 AM	#11
Wolfehunter Crusty Capt. Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,752 Downloads: 40 Uploads: 25	I would support death penalties if these issues where solved first. Government corruption. Police state. Bias, corrupted and racist laws. Absolute proof! Then I would consider death penalties worth while. Because there would be no margin of errors. __________________

06-10-09, 09:29 AM	#12
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	One theory is that in a way criminals who are caught and imprisoned should be viewed very much like disease carriers. They are isolated from the society when they are 'active' but once the disease has been cured they could re-join the society. The way it can be seen from a sociological viewpoint is that crime is like a disease or a social malaise and once we know what makes a criminal 'tick' we've learned something and that data can be used to prevent similar crimes from happening in the future, in a way creating a 'vaccine' against that particular crime. IMO it is the sign of a societies strenght that it can take a criminal and make that person into a good citizen, not just kill him off in some horrid ceremony used to thirst some collective bloodlust akin to the ancient times when people were sacrificed to whatever diety. I think people should be allowed to go with the 'biblical' rule, "eye for an eye" etc., that the death penalty represents. But then they shouldn't use any aspect of sociological sciences in their societies. Or any aspects of modern society. They should live like the Amish and kill off the criminals of their little backward community. Last edited by OneToughHerring; 06-10-09 at 09:40 AM.

06-10-09, 07:17 PM	#14
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Not to mention - most murderers end up spending life in prison anyway. The issue then becomes is the expedience of termination before nature the proper option? But thats another question entirely. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-10-09, 07:37 AM	#10
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Well we, along with a whole host of countries, don't have the death penalty and the last I looked our violent crime levels are not particularly high in comparison to the US. I think it would be fair to say that the death penalty doesn't work, it doesn't reduce violent crime. If what you claim is true about recidivism there should be a lot of it here, but there isn't.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode