[Obdigore]

How about 'numerous people saw your dad do it and dna evidence indicates he was at the scene..

And now you can say 'oh look noone has been killed by someone suposed to be in jail for life for being a psycho mass murderer, because we eliminated that threat to society.'

I don't get why you think, after someone murders people, they should sit around in a jail cell, watching TV and having daily exercise time, while the tax payers foot the bill.

[stone monkey]

I believe the state has no right to go around killing people, which is why I don't mind that my taxes are spent keeping psychos in gaols and secure units fo the rest of their lives.

Of course, killing people to save a buck, that's different...

[Obdigore]

stone monkey;313220 said:

I believe the state has no right to go around killing people, which is why I don't mind that my taxes are spent keeping psychos in gaols and secure units fo the rest of their lives.

Of course, killing people to save a buck, that's different...

And I believe that the state has a duty to keep its citizens as safe as possible, in the best possible way, which is why I don't mind that my taxes are spent to eliminate mass murderers and rapists, as opposed to giving them a nice, long, and healthy life. Seems almost like a reward to me.

PS, you have not countered the 'if they are dead, they cannot escape said gaol' argument.

[The Tyrant Lizard]

I agree. Dead nutters can't hurt anyone, and can't force people to live in fear of being hurt by them.

[paladin]

stone monkey;313220 said:

I believe the state has no right to go around killing people, which is why I don't mind that my taxes are spent keeping psychos in gaols and secure units fo the rest of their lives.

Of course, killing people to save a buck, that's different...

the killers have no right either. there is a balance point somewhere where you have to pay a capital price for your sins to society, especially if the proof is overwhelming

[The Tyrant Lizard]

Yeah, and let's not forget: capital punishment is one hell of a deterent.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

The Tyrant Lizard;313241 said:

Yeah, and let's not forget: capital punishment is one hell of a deterent.

No it's not. If it was, there would be no, or at least very few, capital crimes committed. That's not the case. Plenty of people commit crimes they know they could be executed for.

Basically, most of the time if someone commits a crime, they expect to get away with it. If you think you won't get caught, it doesn't matter what the punishment is because it won't apply to you.

Regarding the cost factor: It's more expensive for the state to execute someone than it is to imprison them for life.

Regarding the idea that criminals are pampered and aren't really punished: This can be true of low level criminals. They get cable, and free time, and can socialize. Violent criminals, the most likely to be imprisoned for a capital level crime, are put in maximum security. No rehabilitation here. Often it's 23 hours a day of solitary confinement, no tv or anything. One hour a day for minimal excercise and a shower.

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;313255 said:

No it's not. If it was, there would be no, or at least very few, capital crimes committed. That's not the case. Plenty of people commit crimes they know they could be executed for.

Basically, most of the time if someone commits a crime, they expect to get away with it. If you think you won't get caught, it doesn't matter what the punishment is because it won't apply to you.

Regarding the cost factor: It's more expensive for the state to execute someone than it is to imprison them for life.

Regarding the idea that criminals are pampered and aren't really punished: This can be true of low level criminals. They get cable, and free time, and can socialize. Violent criminals, the most likely to be imprisoned for a capital level crime, are put in maximum security. No rehabilitation here. Often it's 23 hours a day of solitary confinement, no tv or anything. One hour a day for minimal excercise and a shower.

Prove to me that it is not. Everyone always says that execution is 'not a proven deterrant.' Great, now, can you prove to me it is a proven 'non deterrant?'

[Cause]

Firstly sometimes people are just guilty. Its clear cut. Your blood was on the scene, your semen was in the rape victim. The doorman remebered you going in. No one in the building knows who you are. The victims blood was on your shirt. Your skin was under her fingernails. etc. Sometimes arguig he might just might be innocent is wasting time.

Second is going to someone family and saying. 'Ok turns out your dads innocent. Were giving him back. Hes spent thirty years in maximu security. Were sorry your all strangers. Also be carefull, dont sneak up on him hes got some erious scars from ebing inside so long. Also were sorry his chances for putting that maths degree to work are zero now tht hes fifty. Were sure hell get by.' Is that really a better scenario. Iether way the system stuffed up huge and damagce cant be repaired or forgiven.

I dont know if I even support the death penalty. I have nothing against criminals dying. As far as Im concenrned they are non-persons. I just dont feal strogly either way but I find the he may be innocent argument to be weak. Guidlines can be put in place that the evidence has to be of a certain strength.

I think the real problem from americas point of view is the jury system actually. I dont understand it. Theirs a term jurry nullification when the jury ignores the law and passes the sentance it wants.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Obdigore;313258 said:

Prove to me that it is not. Everyone always says that execution is 'not a proven deterrant.' Great, now, can you prove to me it is a proven 'non deterrant?'

The fact that there are LARGE numbers of people in prison for capital crimes proves it's not a deterrant. If it was, those people would have been deterred from commiting the crimes. They weren't deterred, which shows that the death penalty was not a deterrent. See?

I don't have exact numbers, but I would say that the USA, which has the death penalty, has a higher per capita murder rate than most countries that do not have the death penalty. If it was a deterrant, the USA should have a lower per capita rate. It doesn't.

[Obdigore]

Texas is responsable for over 300 of the 1,100 government executions since it was re-legalized by the supreme court in 1976. Texas certainly does not make up 25+% of the population, nor do they have 25%+ of the violent crimes.

The death penalty is not active in numerous states, and many do not exercise the penalty, even if their legislature/law allows them to.

Have you even looked at how you go about getting someone a death penalty? First they have to be convicted of the crime. Then the jury debates the punishment. Then it is revewied by the state (and lots are overturned) and then approved by the federal government.

What is an effective deterrant then RLY? Seems there are lots of people in prison for numerous crimes, how do we attempt to change that?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Obdigore;313274 said:

Texas is responsable for over 300 of the 1,100 government executions since it was re-legalized by the supreme court in 1976. Texas certainly does not make up 25+% of the population, nor do they have 25%+ of the violent crimes.

That just serves to prove my point. Texas LOVES to execute people. If the DP were a deterrant, people would be especially sure to never kill anyone in Texas. That's not true. Even though everyone knows you're without a doubt going to fry if you commit a capital crime in Texas, people still commit those crimes.

Quote

What is an effective deterrant then RLY? Seems there are lots of people in prison for numerous crimes, how do we attempt to change that?

I don't know the answer to this queston. Instilling stronger morals in children would help. Easing poverty to lessen the need/desire for people to steal. Changing the definition of an imprisonable offence (regarding drug laws for simple possession.) It's not an easy answer, and I don't claim to have it.

All I'm saying is that if someone is able to overcome the moral hurdles against murdering someone else, they are not going to be too worried about what the law says. Our ingrained values against killing others is harder to overcome than fear of the law. PLus like I said earlier, most criminals don't expect to get caught, so they don't feel the punishment (whatever it is) will ever apply to them.

[Obdigore]

Ok, and if they do get caught, then they should just sit in jail for (possibly 70 years?), doing nothing and eating taxpayer money? I still have yet to see an unbiased study that indicates it is less expensive to sit in jail for 60 years than to be executed (although I don't doubt that, due to the rediculous mis-trial and appeals laws that can apply).

Also, according to wikipedia (not always a reliable source), only people convicted of First Degree murder can be executed. This means that if you kill someone in a fit of rage, or you get into a car accident, you won't be exerminated for it.

I do agree with

RLY said:

Instilling stronger morals in children would help. Easing poverty to lessen the need/desire for people to steal. Changing the definition of an imprisonable offence (regarding drug laws for simple possession.)

Edit - Treason can also cause people to be executed, but...

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Look, I think we both agree that the best scenario is that people don't commit capital crimes anymore. But that's not going to happen.

So, yes, I do think it's better to sit someone in prison for the rest of their life than it is to kill them. Why?
1. I don't believe it's a deterrant (I think we've beat this dead horse long enough, we disagree, let's move on)
2. I don't think executing people is a mark of a civilized society in today's world. It makes us look like barbarians.
3. I don't think our government should have the right to put its own citizens to death, for any reason
4. It's cheaper not to kill them, becasue of the ridiculous appeals process
5. It is fact that innocent people have been, and will be executed for crimes they did not commit
6. The death penalty is in practice racist
7. I think that life imprisonment in a maximum security prison is actually a worse punishment than being executed. Given the choice between the two, I would rather be executed than put in prison for 70 years. So, imo capital criminals are not being let off easy by not executing them, they are being more thoroughly punished

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;313313 said:

Look, I think we both agree that the best scenario is that people don't commit capital crimes anymore. But that's not going to happen.

So, yes, I do think it's better to sit someone in prison for the rest of their life than it is to kill them. Why?
1. I don't believe it's a deterrant (I think we've beat this dead horse long enough, we disagree, let's move on)

indeed.

Quote

2. I don't think executing people is a mark of a civilized society in today's world. It makes us look like barbarians.

I disagree. Removing a diseased apple from an orchard keeps the orchard healthy.

Quote

3. I don't think our government should have the right to put its own citizens to death, for any reason

Technically, anyone convicted of a Felony looses many rights associated with citizenship. I believe the only time anyone should/can be executed is when they are a danger to other citizens.

Quote

4. It's cheaper not to kill them, becasue of the ridiculous appeals process

I don't disagree, but I would really like to see a study or something backing this up, if you have one.

Quote

5. It is fact that innocent people have been, and will be executed for crimes they did not commit

And innocent people have been mass murdered. raped, beaten, and taken advantage of in every way. See appendix below.

Quote

6. The death penalty is in practice racist

The people applying the death penalty are in practice racist, since it is a voluntary, by jury, punishment. If it was set as the standard punishment when someone is found guilty of 2 or more counts of pre-meditated murder, that would take all the racism out of it.

Quote

7. I think that life imprisonment in a maximum security prison is actually a worse punishment than being executed. Given the choice between the two, I would rather be executed than put in prison for 70 years. So, imo capital criminals are not being let off easy by not executing them, they are being more thoroughly punished

And I disagree, at this time. If those people were forced to repay their debt to society, and society was able to get a contribution to its wellbeing out of them, then I would be for abolishing the death penalty, but at this time, it does not.

Appendix: I support the death penalty only in cases that can be proven via DNA evidence or numerous eye witnesses, and only when said person is found guilty of 2+ counts of first degree murder or 2+ cases of rape (statuatory or otherwise).

[Cause]

Raymond, yes people still commit capital crimes. The question is do less people commit them than would otherwise because of the detterant. I dont think it can be determined.

The world is fulled with people who would steal, rape etc if their were not some people telling them they could not. Does not mean it wont happen.

obdigore you think a man should be killed for two counts of statutory rape? A 21 year old having sex with a 17 old deserves to die?

[The Tyrant Lizard]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;313255 said:

No it's not. If it was, there would be no, or at least very few, capital crimes committed. That's not the case. Plenty of people commit crimes they know they could be executed for.
.

Capital punishment is more of a deterent than the alternative. In those coutries where there is no death penalty, and the sentance for sexually abusing children, commiting multiple rapes on women, and murdering people, was suddenly changed, I reckon you'd see a big difference in people walking round doing those things.

A paedophile might think twice before he started grooming kids if he thought he's get hung for it.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

@Obdi:
Fair enough. No, I don't have a study about the costs in front of me, but I have seen them. Can't remember where though, so I can't vouch for it being biased or not.

I think we're closer in opinions than it looks on the surface. I don't dispute that some people deserve to be executed, I just don't think we have the right to do so. And based off of your above post, you don't agree with the death penalty as it stands now either. I see your point, and understand where you're coming from.

I wonder if you and I have now killed this discussion thread like we did the one about "things people believe that really bug you!"

@Cause and Tyrant: True, we can't determine without a doubt if it's a deterrant or not. I can see why you think it is, I just think the evidence is stronger in the other direction. I just think it's very significant that the USA, one of the few countries that still has the death penalty, has one of the highest murder rates.

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;313322 said:

Fair enough. No, I don't have a study about the costs in front of me, but I have seen them. Can't remember where though, so I can't vouch for it being biased or not.

I think we're closer in opinions than it looks on the surface. I don't dispute that some people deserve to be executed, I just don't think we have the right to do so. And based off of your above post, you don't agree with the death penalty as it stands now either. I see your point, and understand where you're coming from.

I wonder if you and I have now killed this discussion thread like we did the one about "things people believe that really bug you!"

Well, since you and I obviously always thoroughly discuss every single idea regarding the discussion, what could possily be debated after that?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Obdigore;313324 said:

Well, since you and I obviously always thoroughly discuss every single idea regarding the discussion, what could possily be debated after that?

So, we Win?