Death penalty is wrong

[Mr. President]

It depends on the method of execution.

 

[catzmeow]

It is less expensive to care for a prisoner for life then it is to execute one.

It costs around $40,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate. For those who are on 23 hour a day restriction, as most death row prisoners are, the costs escalate up to about $70k or more a year. And, you have to incarcerate these prisoners in such a way as to minimize their risks to other inmates and corrections personnel. There's no sense in having a mass-murderer having the access and opportunity to kill some guy who burglarizes houses.

Executing a prisoner through lethal injection costs around $4k, including having a medical professional on site.

It's a bargain.

So, let's dismiss that argument because it's FALSE. And, repeating it seventy-eleven times will not make it more truthful. perhaps if you say it more loudly, though, or type in all caps...

Then we'll ignore the facts, right?

 

[Shogun]

I use expense as merely one of many reasons why LWOP is superior to the death penalty. It is less expensive to care for a prisoner for life then it is to execute one.

no, it's really not. There is no reason the state should feel compelled to facilitate a red handed killer just because YOU have conscience issues.

 

[catzmeow]

In spite of the fact that incarcerating an inmate for life can cost easily in the millions, especially if you are talking about a person who has committed multiple violent offenses (because you have to take special precautions while they are incarcerated to protect other inmates from them), Sky will continue to make this claim.

She's a parrot. She keeps repeating whatever mantra she's focused on for the day, without knowing whether it is true or false, and NEVER having researched any facts.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I use expense as merely one of many reasons why LWOP is superior to the death penalty. It is less expensive to care for a prisoner for life then it is to execute one.

no, it's really not. There is no reason the state should feel compelled to facilitate a red handed killer just because YOU have conscience issues.

My conscience issues are irrelevant. Execution varies by state. Geography is a bigger determinant than conscience when it comes to execution.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

It’s not so much that I don’t want to see sociopaths executed, but there are problems with the death penalty in principle and practice.

In America we convict people based upon proving they are guilty, “Beyond a reasonable doubt” (BARD). This is a high standard, but not quite as high as, “Beyond any doubt" (If we used that high of a standard we wouldn’t be able to put any scumbags behind bars). On the other hand, BARD means the odds of guilt are great, but there is not a 100% certainty that the person is guilty. Therefore, there will be some unknown level of execution of innocent people. Decades ago, before DNA testing, this level was likely pretty high, and today it is likely much lower, but I don’t find any level of executing innocent people acceptable.

There are other factors that make the near-perfect justice necessary for the death penalty unlikely in America, making capital punishment problematic in practice. For example, a court case is basically a war of charisma between lawyers. Since good lawyers require good money, the innocent poor are more likely to get executed while those who are guilty and rich are more likely to get off. We all know examples. Also, the criminal justice system can be racist in application due to the discretion of police and judges.

So those are some of the issues in practice, what about the principle of the matter? There are three main arguments for the death penalty in principle: retribution, incapacitation, and general deterrence.

The problem with deterrence is that studies have shown that capital punishment does not deter crime, and may actually increase violent crime, perhaps in part by a sort of copycat mechanism, or by increasing society’s acceptance of violence by having the state sanction it in some cases.

What I don’t get about the retribution argument is that executing these people might be a less painful way to die than they otherwise would have endured, or that the rest of us who did not torture and kill somebody can hope for. Does that mean we should torture and kill them? Using a less humane form of capital punishment would deprive the state of any moral high ground. It’s possible that society would as a result have a higher appetite and capacity for violence as well. Beyond that it’s also unconstitutional to inflict what can be called cruel and unusual punishment.

Finally there’s incapacitation. Criminals in prison can't hurt anybody besides other prisoners. So the death penalty and life in prison have a tie there.

A more productive system than mere incapacitation would be restitution, which means paying back society and/or victims. Ruthless murderers should be forced to work 60 hours a week in a controlled setting but in something productive that would generate money to go to the families of their victims. They should have to work even longer hours to get even basic privileges. The rest of us have to work 40 hours. Criminals should have to work even harder - not enjoy "rotting" in the pen with personal TVs and an athletic facility, only to be executed painlessly 15 or 20 years later.

 

[Shogun]

I use expense as merely one of many reasons why LWOP is superior to the death penalty. It is less expensive to care for a prisoner for life then it is to execute one.

no, it's really not. There is no reason the state should feel compelled to facilitate a red handed killer just because YOU have conscience issues.

My conscience issues are irrelevant. Execution varies by state. Geography is a bigger determinant than conscience when it comes to execution.

indeed, your conscience IS irrelevant. Unfortunately, your kind would rather let a cold blooded killer leach off of the public than allow the state to extract punishment for murdering some innocent victim. To be honest, you are about as sickening as the killer themselves.

 

[Sky Dancer]

no, it's really not. There is no reason the state should feel compelled to facilitate a red handed killer just because YOU have conscience issues.

My conscience issues are irrelevant. Execution varies by state. Geography is a bigger determinant than conscience when it comes to execution.

indeed, your conscience IS irrelevant. Unfortunately, you would rather let a cold blooded killer leach off of the public than allow the state to extract punishment for murdering some innocent victim. To be honest, you are about as sickening as the killer themselves.

I prefer LWOP over the death penalty. Vengeance/revenge killings are not justice. Keep in mind, that some survivor families are not in favor of the DP, and it is increasingly difficult to screen jurors willing to make that decision in a case.

Nonetheless, there is some value in execution when we are able to study the brains of sociopaths and psychopaths. Perhaps there should be an option for those with LWOP to altruistically agree to be executed so that their brains can be studied.

 

[Shogun]

What I don’t get about the retribution argument is that executing these people might be a less painful way to die than they otherwise would have endured, or that the rest of us who did not torture and kill somebody can hope for. Does that mean we should torture and kill them? Using a less humane form of capital punishment would deprive the state of any moral high ground. It’s possible that society would as a result have a higher appetite and capacity for violence as well. Beyond that it’s also unconstitutional to inflict what can be called cruel and unusual punishment.


Let's put it THIS way: when the constititon was being penned the term "cruel and unusual" ALLOWED a wide range of options to the state to kill criminals. While an Iron Maiden or Drawing and Quartering might be cruel and unusual, LETHAL INJECTION IS NOT. Hell, people commit suicide in a much more horrible fashion than FALLING ASLEEP LIKE A DOG.

At one time, sure, DNA evidence wasn't around and innocents may have been killed. I don't rationalize this. BUT, if a killer is on film and there is DNA evidence everywhere and eye witnesses galore.. well.. this no longer becomes a matter of innocence.


I really don't care how many people don't think executions are not justice. If I murder your fucking child in front of you and rape your wife until I cut her throat you are not telling me that you think LWOP fits the bill.

 

[del]

i like the chinese model.
shoot the perp and then bill the family for the cost of the round(s).
harvest any usable organs and grind the rest up for mulch.

 

[Shogun]

My conscience issues are irrelevant. Execution varies by state. Geography is a bigger determinant than conscience when it comes to execution.

indeed, your conscience IS irrelevant. Unfortunately, you would rather let a cold blooded killer leach off of the public than allow the state to extract punishment for murdering some innocent victim. To be honest, you are about as sickening as the killer themselves.

I prefer LWOP over the death penalty. Vengeance/revenge killings are not justice.

Nonetheless, there is some value in execution when we are able to study the brains of sociopaths and psychopaths. Perhaps there should be an option for those with LWOP to altruistically agree to be executed so that their brains can be studied.

I guess thats easy to say while you are not related to a victim. After all.. Hell why WOUDLNT the state want to care for all the Ted Bundy's for life?

 

[Yukon]

State murders or executions as they are refered to should be shown on TV. Every school child in the country should be forced to watch so that they may understand what state compassion is all about. Let the children watch as a man is murdered by the state, how the hypocrits feed him his last meal and grant him the noble right of having a Minister pray for him as he dies.

The hypocricy of the "system" makes me vomit.

 

[del]

State murders or executions as they are refered to should be shown on TV. Every school child in the country should be forced to watch so that they may understand what state compassion is all about. Let the children watch as a man is murdered by the state, how the hypocrits feed him his last meal and grant him the noble right of having a Minister pray for him as he dies.

The hypocricy of the "system" makes me vomit.

the state's not in the compassion business, moosebreath.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

What I don’t get about the retribution argument is that executing these people might be a less painful way to die than they otherwise would have endured, or that the rest of us who did not torture and kill somebody can hope for. Does that mean we should torture and kill them? Using a less humane form of capital punishment would deprive the state of any moral high ground. It’s possible that society would as a result have a higher appetite and capacity for violence as well. Beyond that it’s also unconstitutional to inflict what can be called cruel and unusual punishment.


Let's put it THIS way: when the constititon was being penned the term "cruel and unusual" ALLOWED a wide range of options to the state to kill criminals. While an Iron Maiden or Drawing and Quartering might be cruel and unusual, LETHAL INJECTION IS NOT. Hell, people commit suicide in a much more horrible fashion than FALLING ASLEEP LIKE A DOG.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but what I meant was you are stuck with such painless methods because of the Constitution. But if you're using painless methods for retribution, what's the point?

 

[Sky Dancer]

State murders or executions as they are refered to should be shown on TV. Every school child in the country should be forced to watch so that they may understand what state compassion is all about. Let the children watch as a man is murdered by the state, how the hypocrits feed him his last meal and grant him the noble right of having a Minister pray for him as he dies.

The hypocricy of the "system" makes me vomit.

It's a barbaric system based on 'an eye for an eye' which is a biblical concept. I write to a Buddhist on death row in San Quentin.

He's a talented writer and his work has changed lives.

His name is Jarvis Masters, and he wrote the book, FINDING FREEDOM.

I write to six other prisoners in the Prison Dharma Project.

 

[Shogun]

I totally agree with that. Let the public see the execution. By all means.

 

[Shogun]

What I don’t get about the retribution argument is that executing these people might be a less painful way to die than they otherwise would have endured, or that the rest of us who did not torture and kill somebody can hope for. Does that mean we should torture and kill them? Using a less humane form of capital punishment would deprive the state of any moral high ground. It’s possible that society would as a result have a higher appetite and capacity for violence as well. Beyond that it’s also unconstitutional to inflict what can be called cruel and unusual punishment.


Let's put it THIS way: when the constititon was being penned the term "cruel and unusual" ALLOWED a wide range of options to the state to kill criminals. While an Iron Maiden or Drawing and Quartering might be cruel and unusual, LETHAL INJECTION IS NOT. Hell, people commit suicide in a much more horrible fashion than FALLING ASLEEP LIKE A DOG.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but what I meant was you are stuck with such painless methods because of the Constitution. But if you're using painless methods for retribution, what's the point?

the point is justice. But, I have no problem with going back to hanging or firing squad. Hell, if it's good enough tor dictators and solders then it's good enough for killers.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If executions were televised we'd soon put an end to them.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

What I don’t get about the retribution argument is that executing these people might be a less painful way to die than they otherwise would have endured, or that the rest of us who did not torture and kill somebody can hope for. Does that mean we should torture and kill them? Using a less humane form of capital punishment would deprive the state of any moral high ground. It’s possible that society would as a result have a higher appetite and capacity for violence as well. Beyond that it’s also unconstitutional to inflict what can be called cruel and unusual punishment.


Let's put it THIS way: when the constititon was being penned the term "cruel and unusual" ALLOWED a wide range of options to the state to kill criminals. While an Iron Maiden or Drawing and Quartering might be cruel and unusual, LETHAL INJECTION IS NOT. Hell, people commit suicide in a much more horrible fashion than FALLING ASLEEP LIKE A DOG.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but what I meant was you are stuck with such painless methods because of the Constitution. But if you're using painless methods for retribution, what's the point?

the point is justice. But, I have no problem with going back to hanging or firing squad. Hell, if it's good enough tor dictators and solders then it's good enough for killers.

I try to think of what the victim would want. I would think they would usually like their murderer to have to work in prison like a slave paying money to help his/her family that they left behind. And in that case if the person had been innocent at least they have some meaning and purpose to their life.

Methods of execution do have an interesting history, though. Hanging is not especially painful provided it is done correctly so that the neck snaps right away. A botched hanging isn't much worse than the gas chamber, though. Hanging just looks kind of gruesome for people watching compared to lethal injection. Guillotine is pretty humane too, but looks pretty bad. Firing squad, however, would be painful. Not on the level of crucifying, breaking on the wheel, burning, or stoning, but pretty bad. The Bible seems to prefer stoning. I always wondered why.

 

[del]

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but what I meant was you are stuck with such painless methods because of the Constitution. But if you're using painless methods for retribution, what's the point?

the point is justice. But, I have no problem with going back to hanging or firing squad. Hell, if it's good enough tor dictators and solders then it's good enough for killers.

I try to think of what the victim would want. I would think they would usually like their murderer to have to work in prison like a slave paying money to help his/her family that they left behind. And in that case if the person had been innocent at least they have some meaning and purpose to their life.

Methods of execution do have an interesting history, though. Hanging is not especially painful provided it is done correctly so that the neck snaps right away. A botched hanging isn't much worse than the gas chamber, though. Hanging just looks kind of gruesome for people watching compared to lethal injection. Guillotine is pretty humane too, but looks pretty bad. Firing squad, however, would painful. Not on the level of crucifying, breaking on the wheel, burning, or stoning, but pretty bad. The Bible seems to prefer stoning. I always wondered why.

probably because the gun, the guillotine, and the gas chamber hadn't been invented yet. plus, stones are cheap and easy to find.