Finally, something I agree with conservatives on

[piñata]

So, what does everyone think of the death penalty?

I'm for it, which I know is surprising because I go left on everything else.

I just think if the victims of crimes didn't get any humane treatment, then the criminals shouldn't either. In fact, I'd go so far as to say lethal injections are a joke, but the guillotine would be perfect.

[Scythe]

I think that in most cases where death penalty is used..well..some things worse than death. Terminating the serial killers and people like that gives them an easy way out, meesa thinks. Lock them up in a cell for life and plaster one wall with pictures of the person/people they killed. The faces of their victims surrounding them; staring at them all day and all night. make them repent. Make them live with their crime until old age takes them. THAT would be true punishment.

I'm not squeamish about the death penalty, I don't really have a problem with it, but I think that there are more punishing methods of punishment, better ways to make them pay, if you catch my drift.

[SuperBassX84]

And here we have Piñata demonstrating going so far to the left that you start to come back up on the right...I think.

Anyway...I actually had a discussion about this with my Mom the other day.

I am idealistically against the death penalty. I don't think any individual has the right to take the life of another.

Applicably, I am for it. If the choice is between the death penalty or 15 years in a posh jail followed by being set free, fry the fuckers. If it were solitary confinement, with a cot, a sink, and a hole in the ground to piss in, and nothing but bread and water three times daily, I'd be all for it. That's infinitely worse punishment than death. But given the current circumstances, I think killing them is a better solution.

[SpasticChicken]

I agree with what Scythe said [insert] heavenly music[/insert] having the pics would creep me out, i'm thinking the person will go crazy or kill themselves. heh heh. I don't have a problem with the death penalty for some people, i think it really depends tho.

[Belgarath]

Well - I'm for both sides I guess.

I like the death penalty because it costs something like $30,000 a year to keep an inmate in prison...That adds up, killing people takes a load off of the system

But...Yea, most people who kill don't really care about life obviously, so their own death will mean nothing to them. I'm all for Scythe's idea, that would be creepy...Plus, if a person is wrongly convicted, at least they can be set free if they are in jail, saying a dead guy is innocent isn't going to help much.

[devo2]

Belgarath said:

Well - I'm for both sides I guess.

I like the death penalty because it costs something like $30,000 a year to keep an inmate in prison...That adds up, killing people takes a load off of the system

Sad thing is that it actually costs less to keep an inmate in prison for the rest of their lives than to administer the death penalty in most cases. That's the real reason why it doesn't exist in many states.

BTW, in California, the state spends $21,000/yr on inmates and $6,000/year on students.

[piñata]

devo2 said:

Sad thing is that it actually costs less to keep an inmate in prison for the rest of their lives than to administer the death penalty in most cases.

That's only because of the infinite appeals, though. Want to ease the burden on the taxpayers? Only give convicted murderers one appeal, and if they lose that appeal execute them the next day. I never understood how a country's priorities could get so fucked up that we place expedient trial more importantly than expedient sentencing.

[Elfie]

Because then you're killing a bunch of innocent people Piñata, like David Milgaard and Thomas Sophonow, and that's really bad. What's a reliable link to a murder scene under today's technology may be totally bunk under tomorrow's. We're currently seeing what used to be considered a foolproof way of linking people like hair comparison is actually very likely to produce mistakes. It goes past just that though. The simple truth is that when you kill someone you want to be absolutely sure. "Close enough" is really, really not good enough when you're taking a life, and people who advocate single appeals are advocating this "close enough" approach. As the son of two lawyers, I can tell that even the current appeal process gets the occaisional innocent person killed. That's originally why Canada stopped using the death penalty. If you cut down on appeal opportunities, you amplify the chances of being wrong.

That said, I'm fine with letting them rot. If we find that someone was innocent 20 years down the road, we can free them if they're just sitting in a cell. We're kind of out of options if we've already had them executed, wouldn't you agree?

Even beyond that, a lot of the time they're just twisted, but not in a way that could get them committed, so they're put in jail instead. There are a lot of mentally ill people who aren't put in institutions because the government has cut funding on institutions. What does that mean to people like us? It means a lot of time you're killing people who, while sick, had next to zero control over how they acted in the situation. Yes, there's always the choice to be virtuous, but you have to realize that in some people minds the pros and cons are weighed differently because of the surroundings they grew up in.

The goal here should be to keep them out of society at the least cost possible, which is accomplished through life sentences, as Devo said.

Look at it this way. There are four main concerns of the prison system:
1) Segregation - Either system accomplishes this. Life just does it cheaper.
2) Rehabilitation - Doesn't come into play because the people we're talking about will be designated "dangerous offenders" and kept under lock and key permanently or killed. Regardless, no rehab.
3) Deterrence - Either system accomplishes this to the same extent. It's the fear of getting caught that stops these people if anything does. They honestly don't care if they live or die, and that fear of getting caught happens either way.
4) Retribution - People need to be punished for their actions. Okay. That makes sense. Do we need to kill them though? Yes, it would make the family of the one(s) killed feel better. Is that a good enough reason? I would say no. The criminal law system does not deal with compensation. If you want compensation you can sue the person for damages, and I can guarantee the judge in that case won't grant you the right to kill the person as compensation.

[important]So what's the main point here? The death penalty costs us money in the form of appeals so we can satisfy those who have lost loved ones. It's a tough decision, but in the end I believe society shouldn't compensate victims for the actions of an individual. Take the bastard to civil court, but I don't see why we're making the taxpayers pay for your suffering. That's should be the criminal's responsibility, not ours.[/important]

[SpasticChicken]

when u speak of innocent people being being put to death like in the "green mile" hehe...i love that movie... anyways thats whats make me fell a little iffy about it. I don't want innocent ppl to die but whos to decided who really did it or didn't? only god *shakes head* only god.

[Scythe]

If the only issue involved in whether its better to execute people or imprson them is cost, I don't think the death penalty is really justified. The question is: are people safer if we kill off murderers and stuff, or are they safer if we dont kill them in case they were innocent?

[Elfie]

Scythe said:

If the only issue involved in whether its better to execute people or imprson them is cost, I don't think the death penalty is really justified. The question is: are people safer if we kill off murderers and stuff, or are they safer if we dont kill them in case they were innocent?

In terms of keeping the innocent people of society safe, keeping people alive is the better choice. No matter how you slice it, people outside of the prison system aren't in danger from convicted murderers. They'ren't going to be released into the public unless there's a massive jailbreak, and those just don't happen anymore. Then we have to consider the innocents within the system. These fall into two groups:
1) The security guards and whatnot. Okay, these people should be protected but we don't hear of security guards in prisons being murdered, so I consider it a moot point.
2) The convicted innocents. Under the death penalty you kill them. Under the life in prison penatly you don't. Thus innocents are safer under the life in prison plan.

Here's the thing though. Who are you protecting by killing these people as opposed to letting them rot? They aren't getting out either way, so I'd say no one. Am I wrong?

[Scythe]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and agree with you on that one. Less killing = less people dead = people are safer.

[SpasticChicken]

you say w/o the death penalty, people are safer. I don't believe that. example: when u put someone away, people might feel safer from that person but their not. That person is in jail and will probably never get out but what about the people he already hurt? What about the people who will be hurt when the next murderer comes along hmmm? Some innocent people do get put to death but, hey thats life...or death lol NOt many people who are put to death with this system are innocent. And i'm willing to take the chance. i'm not saying killing people will stop all this but if your saying just locking people us is safer than the death penalty i don't think it matters either way.

Edit: Ahhh i have so many thoughts i can't write clear, i tried to fix it tho, sorry guys lol

[Scythe]

SpasticChicken said:

safer?! ohkay...when u put this "guy" Away some people are safer from him but what of the ppl he already hurt? what about the people who will be hurt when the next murderer comes along hmmm? i'm not saying killing people will stop all this but in this case it really doesn't matter

I don't quite get what you're saying. Could you clarify? ;D

[Elfie]

Ditto.