[Sindriss]

But what if the innocent bystander getting sentenced to death was a person very close to you, would you still accept the system because of your opinion that death is a proper sentence for those who commit serious crimes?
It is easy to accept some innocent person someplace in the country to take the spot, much harder if it was somebody you knew and loved. I would never be able to live with that on my conscience, knowing an innocent person who had his own life, family and dreams, to be executed because of a mistake in the system.

[beru]

i HOPE i would still back the system... i back it now alltho if a better system popps out of nowere i would back it even more ferocus...

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Sindriss, on Mar 10 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

But what if the innocent bystander getting sentenced to death was a person very close to you, would you still accept the system because of your opinion that death is a proper sentence for those who commit serious crimes?
It is easy to accept some innocent person someplace in the country to take the spot, much harder if it was somebody you knew and loved. I would never be able to live with that on my conscience, knowing an innocent person who had his own life, family and dreams, to be executed because of a mistake in the system.

I would probably not accept that particular decision because, well, because I am only human after all, but I would still believe in capital punishment and support the system.Nothing is perfect. Instead of trying to get rid of or destroy the system, I would spend my time and resources proving that person's innocence. But the likelihood of that happening is really really small.


Let me ask you the same question.

If someone you loved or were close to was wrongly sentenced to a life in jail and then died of natural causes/accident/ was killed by other inmate before you could prove him/her innocent, would you still support that system? Of course you would. It's a tragic mistake, but that one inicdent does not reflect on the system as a whole. You can't not sentence murderers and rapists to a life in jail because of that one mistake...that would be absurd.


Beru: yes, my thoughts exactly.

[beru]

the only way to deal with people that are pure evil with no way of getting back to "resnoable sandars of sosial behavior are eather to lock them avay or kill them no matter what you put forward, and to lock somone up you hav to use much money on them wich does not stand well with the goverment or the people having to pay for this persons relative happines (theoretacly not practial argument)

practical is harder... then there is no telling if a person can get better or not but we still have to chose bacus to let him/she go free (maby after some years in jail) is wrong (if (s)he has not improved)

[Grimjust Bearegular]

beru, on Mar 11 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

the only way to deal with people that are pure evil with no way of getting back to "resnoable sandars of sosial behavior are eather to lock them avay or kill them no matter what you put forward, and to lock somone up you hav to use much money on them wich does not stand well with the goverment or the people having to pay for this persons relative happines (theoretacly not practial argument)

practical is harder... then there is no telling if a person can get better or not but we still have to chose bacus to let him/she go free (maby after some years in jail) is wrong (if (s)he has not improved)

yes, and some people never change. Like child molestors, rapists and serial killers. Plus, if you decide to keep all of them in jail for life, it's gonna get pretty crowded...

[Obdigore]

The fact of the matter is, in the US, the Death Penalty is legal.

The Onus is upon you, Morgoth, to prove that the death penalty as status quo is bad, which you have not.

The only 'argument' you bring to the thread is that:

1) You don't think the government should be allowed to execute anyone.
2) Someone who is not guilty might be executed.
3) It is more expensive than life in prison.
4) It does not decrease crime.

Am I reading your arguments wrong? Strawmanning? Missing something?

Grim his a nice post about a country that dosen't have the death penalty having enormous crime problems.

So present to me your whole spiel, anti-death penalty activists. Tell me what you would change, how you think it would effect the country financially, criminally, and public opinion.

How will abolishing the death penalty create a better place for me and mine?

[Theotendo]

We would all like to assume that people respect the law and human life enough not to commit murder (be it under special circumstances or not), but the truth is, people don't.

In South Africa, a lot of the time there isn't even the slightest consideration for the possible repercussions of taking a life. The typical transgressor has been to prison before and knows how to survive it. And given the numerous gaps in the justice system (corruption, weak sentencing) jailtime as punishment just doesn't seem to be cutting it.

Do I advocate that we start lynching murderers left, right and centre? Absolutely not. But I do believe that if someone is aware of the fact that taking a life will cost you your own, they would think twice before doing it.

Such considerations, of course, are meaningless unless the system is able dispense justice and capital punishments fairly and without fail. And what is the likelyhood of that? Anywhere?

[beru]

Theotendo, on Mar 11 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

We would all like to assume that people respect the law and human life enough not to commit murder (be it under special circumstances or not), but the truth is, people don't.

In South Africa, a lot of the time there isn't even the slightest consideration for the possible repercussions of taking a life. The typical transgressor has been to prison before and knows how to survive it. And given the numerous gaps in the justice system (corruption, weak sentencing) jailtime as punishment just doesn't seem to be cutting it.

Do I advocate that we start lynching murderers left, right and centre? Absolutely not. But I do believe that if someone is aware of the fact that taking a life will cost you your own, they would think twice before doing it.

Such considerations, of course, are meaningless unless the system is able dispense justice and capital punishments fairly and without fail. And what is the likelyhood of that? Anywhere?

secondend but the goverment must remember that if people aint shown that criminals (that is of course serius criminals) get killed as a fear factor
im not saying public killing but the newspaper sould say somthing about it relatvly often
or somthing

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Obdigore, on Mar 11 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is, in the US, the Death Penalty is legal.

The Onus is upon you, Morgoth, to prove that the death penalty as status quo is bad, which you have not.

The only 'argument' you bring to the thread is that:

1) You don't think the government should be allowed to execute anyone.
2) Someone who is not guilty might be executed.
3) It is more expensive than life in prison.
4) It does not decrease crime.

Am I reading your arguments wrong? Strawmanning? Missing something?

Grim his a nice post about a country that dosen't have the death penalty having enormous crime problems.

So present to me your whole spiel, anti-death penalty activists. Tell me what you would change, how you think it would effect the country financially, criminally, and public opinion.

How will abolishing the death penalty create a better place for me and mine?

I would also like to see Morgoth explain these things. Some of his "arguments" just don't add up/make sense to me. You, on the other hand, make some excellent points.

Theotendo, on Mar 11 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

We would all like to assume that people respect the law and human life enough not to commit murder (be it under special circumstances or not), but the truth is, people don't.

In South Africa, a lot of the time there isn't even the slightest consideration for the possible repercussions of taking a life. The typical transgressor has been to prison before and knows how to survive it. And given the numerous gaps in the justice system (corruption, weak sentencing) jailtime as punishment just doesn't seem to be cutting it.

Do I advocate that we start lynching murderers left, right and centre? Absolutely not. But I do believe that if someone is aware of the fact that taking a life will cost you your own, they would think twice before doing it.

Such considerations, of course, are meaningless unless the system is able dispense justice and capital punishments fairly and without fail. And what is the likelyhood of that? Anywhere?

A perfect system is close to impossible to achieve, unless we, perhaps, remove the human factor. This has already been discussed in this thread, I think. The system is flawed, and at some point a mistake is going to be made, the question is; Are we willing to pay the price?
I think I have made it quite clear what my answer is.

beru, on Mar 12 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Theotendo, on Mar 11 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

We would all like to assume that people respect the law and human life enough not to commit murder (be it under special circumstances or not), but the truth is, people don't.

In South Africa, a lot of the time there isn't even the slightest consideration for the possible repercussions of taking a life. The typical transgressor has been to prison before and knows how to survive it. And given the numerous gaps in the justice system (corruption, weak sentencing) jailtime as punishment just doesn't seem to be cutting it.

Do I advocate that we start lynching murderers left, right and centre? Absolutely not. But I do believe that if someone is aware of the fact that taking a life will cost you your own, they would think twice before doing it.

Such considerations, of course, are meaningless unless the system is able dispense justice and capital punishments fairly and without fail. And what is the likelyhood of that? Anywhere?

secondend but the goverment must remember that if people aint shown that criminals (that is of course serius criminals) get killed as a fear factor
im not saying public killing but the newspaper sould say somthing about it relatvly often
or somthing

Yes, the fear factor is important. Where I come from people aren't scared of the consequences of their actions, they do not fear going to jail at all. Does this contribute to the level of crime in this country? I believe so.

[beru]

all countrys sould make a deal so enyone that all that do crimes are senteced in ther own contry (if they are a fair country jugemental of course) this will stop those annoing bastards that goes to norway (and probably other too), does crime here(there) and have no problem with beeing caught beacuse we have so good jails...

[Grimjust Bearegular]

beru, on Mar 12 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

all countrys sould make a deal so enyone that all that do crimes are senteced in ther own contry (if they are a fair country jugemental of course) this will stop those annoing bastards that goes to norway (and probably other too), does crime here(there) and have no problem with beeing caught beacuse we have so good jails...

I know, it's ridiculous! Criminals shouldn't want to go to jail, they should fear it.

Similar case in England, not long ago. A man rapes a young woman so he can go to jail and learn English. What in the world is wrong with these people?


And to make another argument that capital punishment is a good thing: Josef Fritzl.

This post has been edited by Grimhilde: 13 March 2009 - 09:58 AM

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Grimhilde, on Mar 12 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Yes, the fear factor is important. Where I come from people aren't scared of the consequences of their actions, they do not fear going to jail at all. Does this contribute to the level of crime in this country? I believe so.

But statistics indicate that the death penalty has very little if any effect at all on demonstrable crime rates as a deterrent. Look at murder rates in the US for an easy example. Wisconsin doesnt have the death penalty, Texas does. Texas' murder rate is twice that of Wisconsin's, regardless. The US has the death penalty, the UK doesnt. The murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain. Texas and Oklahoma both have the death penalty, both have seen increased murder rates, and have rates higher than the national average. In none of these cases is there an enormous public culture gap, and in any case you are basing your argument upon each human being rational enough to view the death penlty as a deterrent. The very fact they murder someone in the first place should, in most cases, indicate they lack a completely rational outlook. Thus, the death penalty is hugely unlikely to act as a deterrent in any case.

If we subtract the argument that it is a detterent and will stop crime, then all you're left with is essentially having it for revenge. Someone kills someone else, lex talionis and retributive punishment says they must be killed. Why? What does it achieve? It costs the state more to execute someone, so we've seen there's no benefit there. We know it is possible that we falsely convict someone, so it's no better there either.

Ultimately, if you knew that the murderer of your friend would be kept in solitary confinement, unable to enjoy any of the pleasures of life and forced to stitch mailbags until the day they died, would you want the death penalty? I cant see why you possibly would. If we're saying killing is wrong, how can you justify the claim that we must kill a murderer to compensate the crime? It's bizarre, it's essentially state sanctioning of the act. Especially when there are no forseeable benefits, it seems completely incoherent.

To me, people that support the death penalty are merely unhappy with the system of incarceration and sentencing, something I agree fully with. But what's the better alternative, to reform the penal system and make it truly a punishment and have better sentencing, or to fry everyone we think has committed a crime, just because?

[beru]

do you see the "who got put to death today" in the american newspaper?
they have to use propaganda damnit

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Thelomen Toblerone, on Mar 13 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 12 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Yes, the fear factor is important. Where I come from people aren't scared of the consequences of their actions, they do not fear going to jail at all. Does this contribute to the level of crime in this country? I believe so.

But statistics indicate that the death penalty has very little if any effect at all on demonstrable crime rates as a deterrent. Look at murder rates in the US for an easy example. Wisconsin doesnt have the death penalty, Texas does. Texas' murder rate is twice that of Wisconsin's, regardless. The US has the death penalty, the UK doesnt. The murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain. Texas and Oklahoma both have the death penalty, both have seen increased murder rates, and have rates higher than the national average. In none of these cases is there an enormous public culture gap, and in any case you are basing your argument upon each human being rational enough to view the death penlty as a deterrent. The very fact they murder someone in the first place should, in most cases, indicate they lack a completely rational outlook. Thus, the death penalty is hugely unlikely to act as a deterrent in any case.

If we subtract the argument that it is a detterent and will stop crime, then all you're left with is essentially having it for revenge. Someone kills someone else, lex talionis and retributive punishment says they must be killed. Why? What does it achieve? It costs the state more to execute someone, so we've seen there's no benefit there. We know it is possible that we falsely convict someone, so it's no better there either.

Ultimately, if you knew that the murderer of your friend would be kept in solitary confinement, unable to enjoy any of the pleasures of life and forced to stitch mailbags until the day they died, would you want the death penalty? I cant see why you possibly would. If we're saying killing is wrong, how can you justify the claim that we must kill a murderer to compensate the crime? It's bizarre, it's essentially state sanctioning of the act. Especially when there are no forseeable benefits, it seems completely incoherent.

To me, people that support the death penalty are merely unhappy with the system of incarceration and sentencing, something I agree fully with. But what's the better alternative, to reform the penal system and make it truly a punishment and have better sentencing, or to fry everyone we think has committed a crime, just because?

I believe that if you read any of my previous posts you'll have your questions answered.

And how can it possibly be more expensive to execute someone than keeping them with "room and board" for several decades? I have a hard time believing that. But it can be fixed. Just do away with all the fancy stuff and just shoot them. Bullets don't cost that much.

I can justify it by the simple fact that it isn't murder when the state/government does it. When a country decides to send its troops to war, do we then charge the soldiers with murder when they get back? No, of course not. Because their actions were sanctioned by the government.
We cannot view the government as an individual like you and me, it doesn't work that way. We do not execute the criminal, it does.

[beru]

who ever says: "the law is equal" to all is more or less wrong... there havee to be two laws: one for the the goverment and one for the people.
im not saying that the goverment can do enything they want but exicution of guilty criminals sould be alowed

[Menandore]

Grimhilde, on Mar 13 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

I can justify it by the simple fact that it isn't murder when the state/government does it. When a country decides to send its troops to war, do we then charge the soldiers with murder when they get back? No, of course not. Because their actions were sanctioned by the government.
We cannot view the government as an individual like you and me, it doesn't work that way. We do not execute the criminal, it does.

Are you serious? So when the german government decided it was a good idea to slaughter people because they were jewish that was ok and justified because it was the government that decided it? Just because the government are the ones doing the killing does not mean it is justified or right.

This post has been edited by Menandore: 13 March 2009 - 03:48 PM

[Slow Ben]

Found this little tidbit (Florida was the first one to come up).
http://www.dc.state....brief/cost.html

Basically it costs about $53 a day to house an inmate and just under 20K per year. So if a 30 year old man went on a shooting spree, got arrested, then got life and lived for 50 years instead of the death penalty. Thats almost 1 million for just one person, without prices going up.

As far as i'm concerned they gave up their right to live when they started taking that choice away from others and the taxpayers shouldnt have to pay so that they can go on living.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

But it costs on average $2million per person to execute them. So it's still half as cheap to incarcerate for life, thus nullifying your point.

@ Grim: GA hit the nail squarely on the head. The government CANNOT be above the law if you in any way wish to value individual freedoms and liberties. It's hardly as if they're infallible as it is, governments continually make mistakes. "do away with all the fancy stuff" is a quite frankly mind-boggling and incredulous statement. You want to abolish due process and fair trials just to be able to save abit of cash?! I may have misunderstood your point, but if that is what you're claiming (very little of the expense comes in the actual act of execution, so I can only assume it is), then I don't think we'll be able to reach agreement.

[Slow Ben]

How do you figure it costs 2 mil to execute someone? Not saying your wrong, but where'd you get that number?

And if that is the case then its the govt's fault for spending too much damn money on something that should be simple.

This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 13 March 2009 - 04:41 PM

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Amnesty international have pulled information from a variety of reports and investigations, worked out the budgets of penal systems enacting executions and so forth. But the generally easier way of looking at it is that the trial process when seeking the death penalty is intensely more convoluted, with a battery of appeal trials that can be held. Considering 1 of every 7 people sentenced to death since 1976 has been taken off death row for varying degrees of innocence/diminished responsibility, you cant argue those appeals arent needed. Further, 95% of death row inmates cannot afford their own legal representation (could you afford years of trials whilst being out of employmeny, with lawyers fees the way they are?) It's not fair to deny them access to fair representation, and that funding comes from the state. Generally it's lower paid lawyers, who do a less than adequate job, but it costs the state alot of money. You then also have to consider that death row is pretty much as maximum security as you can go, so the costs of guarding these people over the years they go through the trial process is alot higher than it would be were they in a normal, larger institution, even one that was also maximum security.

A 2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research) showed that it cost 48% more than the average cost of trials when prosecutors seek life imprisonment. Consider several of those for each case, and it all adds up.

Quote

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences. Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials. More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution. When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/factshee...ovember2008.pdf