So, death penalty

[David Bjur]

I've seen alot of people on this site saying that they wish certain people to die, and wondered if the same people believe that death penalty is something that's justifiable
And if you believe that death penalty is a justifiable punishment for some crimes, which are these crimes exactly?

So basically: Do you think death penalty is a justifiable punishment?

Captcha: go berserk

EDIT: Oh, I accidentally put this in the off topic section, erm, how do I get a mod to move it to the religion and Politics section?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

As long as there is any chance that an innocent person can be executed, no matter how small, it's not worth it.

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Mayhaps]

I don't believe in the death-penalty, I think it's barbaric.

 

[DJjaffacake]

I think this probably belongs in the Religion and Politics section.

OT: The death penalty is wrong, no matter what the reason given. The video in the post above me sums it up perfectly, so if you didn't watch it, do.
Edit: the post above the post above the post above.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I'm against the death penalty. I don't think it's a justifiable thing for any civilised society to still be doing.

Though just to mess up some people's heads I'm very much pro-abortion and pro-assisted suicide. Work that out.

 

[Hazy992]

I don't support the death penalty for any crime. If just one innocent person is killed or has the possibility of being killed then it's not worth it. Plus I don't like the hypocrisy of condemnig killing with killing.

Plus it's just straight up barbaric. It says a lot about a state if it's willing to kill it's own citizens.

 

[bobmus]

In the words of Gandalf:

Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.

Two wrongs never make a right, and by killing someone for doing something barbaric, we become barbarians ourselves.

 

[repeating integers]

Your captcha is perfect. Perfect.

Also, I don't believe in the Death Penalty. Too much chance of killing a wrongly convicted innocent, and anyway, seems a bit hypocritical to say "don't kill, because killing it wrong - also we'll kill you if you kill".

 

[Raven's Nest]

Some people are just better off being removed from the world...

But our way of doing it is horribly inefficient, clearly not effective as a deterrent and there will always be the element of doubt.

As it stands, I'm against the death penalty. If they fixed the three things I mentioned above, I'd be all for it.

 

[bobmus]

I'm against the death penalty. I don't think it's a justifiable thing for any civilised society to still be doing.

Though just to mess up some people's heads I'm very much pro-abortion and pro-assisted suicide. Work that out.

So am I, and so are a lot of people. One is an act of cruelty against a conscious person - the other two are not.

 

[Fappy]

I say no to the death penalty! I have read far too many papers about people found innocent after their execution. I don't believe anyone has the right to take life from another unless in self defense or in defense of another. Also, executions are more expensive than keeping a prisoner alive until they die naturally anyway... fun fact.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I'm against the death penalty. I don't think it's a justifiable thing for any civilised society to still be doing.

Though just to mess up some people's heads I'm very much pro-abortion and pro-assisted suicide. Work that out.

So am I, and so are a lot of people. One is an act of cruelty against a conscious person - the other two are not.

Huh... maybe it's because I'm normally talking about the death penalty with loopy right-wingers that nobody normally seems to understand my positions on these subjects.

 

[Fappy]

Also, executions are more expensive than keeping a prisoner alive until they die naturally anyway... fun fact.

I don't know where you get your figures from but that is not only laughably incorrect but doesn't even pass muster with basic common sense... less the guy was arrested when he was like 80 and on his deathbed already

Most people sit on death-row for years, sometimes decades. The paperwork require to execute someone in America is enormous considering all of the appeals and all of that nonsense. Lets put it this way: if they admit they are guilty and don't try to appeal the case or fight it in anyway the execution will likely be much cheaper than life in prison. However, most people will fight these charges until the end and the government has to foot the bill when its all said and done. Multiple trials are extremely expensive.

EDIT: Here's an interesting site I found http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Interesting excerpt:

Spoiler

Los Angeles Times Study Finds California Spends $250 Million per Execution (2005)


Key Points:

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)

With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.

It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.

The Attorney General devotes about 15% of his budget, or $11 million annually to death penalty cases.

The California Supreme Court spends $11.8 million on appointed counsel for death row inmates.

The Office of the State Public Defender and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center spend a total of $22.3 million on defense for indigent defendants facing death.

The federal court system spends approximately $12 million on defending death row inmates in federal court.

No figures were given for the amount spent by the offices of County District Attorneys on the prosecution of capital cases, however these expenses are presumed to be in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

Source: Tempest, Rone, "Death Row Often Means a Long Life", Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2005. Read the article.

The study is specific to California, but you get the idea.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I'm against it. I mean if you're having a shootout with the cops by all means get shot and die you dumb idiot but I think human life shouldn't be taken in the name of justice lightly. I could only see it appropriate for those who have killed thousands or hundreds of thousands as war criminals. Killing unarmed criminals just seems wrong to me personally Batman doesn't kill!

For murder, rape and even the hot topic issue of pedophilia I'd still rather have the scum rot in a jail cell for the rest of their lives. Killing someone doesn't erase what they did. If you want them to be punished have them removed from society and live the remainder of their life regretting the decisions that led them there.

 

[Smithburg]

I think it's justified, but only if there was a way to know undeniably that the person was guilty, and then for murder. Like it says in that video the right to life is one of the most basic human rights. The thing is if you kill someone else, you have taken their right to life and have forfeited yours in doing so. It's a tough decision though

 

[Archroy]

Also, executions are more expensive than keeping a prisoner alive until they die naturally anyway... fun fact.

I don't know where you get your figures from but that is not only laughably incorrect but doesn't even pass muster with basic common sense... less the guy was arrested when he was like 80 and on his deathbed already

Most people sit on death-row for years, sometimes decades. The paperwork require to execute someone in America is enormous considering all of the appeals and all of that nonsense. Lets put it this way: if they admit they are guilty and don't try to appeal the case or fight it in anyway the execution will likely be much cheaper than life in prison. However, most people will fight these charges until the end and the government has to foot the bill when its all said and done. Multiple trials are extremely expensive.

EDIT: Here's an interesting site I found http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

The study is specific to California, but you get the idea.

It seems to me that telling pro death penalty types the information about the actual increased monetary cost of keeping prisoners on death row, as opposed to just throwing the key away, will usually elicit a cry of " Kill the bastards quickly then! Don't waste my tax money on murderers!"

 

[Fappy]

Also, executions are more expensive than keeping a prisoner alive until they die naturally anyway... fun fact.

I don't know where you get your figures from but that is not only laughably incorrect but doesn't even pass muster with basic common sense... less the guy was arrested when he was like 80 and on his deathbed already

Most people sit on death-row for years, sometimes decades. The paperwork require to execute someone in America is enormous considering all of the appeals and all of that nonsense. Lets put it this way: if they admit they are guilty and don't try to appeal the case or fight it in anyway the execution will likely be much cheaper than life in prison. However, most people will fight these charges until the end and the government has to foot the bill when its all said and done. Multiple trials are extremely expensive.

and you think people who get life sentences don't get the same chances to appeal or won't fight the sentences? either way life or death they both get THE SAME chances to force more appeals and trials and burn money.. . except someone sent to death will always have less time to do so thus statistically cost less... if you remove the death penalty than not only are those people costing more for being imprisoned they also now have the whole rest of their lives to cost even more money with silly appeals and other "nonsense".. oh and then there is the fact that the they may WIN one of those appeals because of judicial bullshit tricks and get released even if they are guilty.. now instead of a dead criminal and some measure of justice we have a free criminal who wasted an asston of taxpayer money and is free to do it again

not to mention all your reasoning has nothing to do with the actual cost of executing someone but the cost of the bullshit the prison has to go through BECAUSE of the people like you who complain about it and force them to go through the extra work... if it wasn't for the bitching those people signed up for execution would be taken out back and shot in the head right after the court case

if you cared so much about innocents being killed and "justice" then you should be putting effort into reforming the justice system not a proven viable penalty

That hurt my brain to read. Utilize grammar properly and I will continue this discussion.

Also, check the link I put in my last post. There are plenty of studies out there that come to the same conclusion. Sure it would be cheap to take someone out behind a shed and shoot them in the head, but you have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they have committed the crime and that costs a lot of money to do. Too many innocent people ahve been executed in this country.

 

[Mayhaps]

snip

It seems as though you hate people being able to make a case for themselves.
People have been proven innocent after being on death-row for a very long time.

"Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions."

California?s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually
*Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

*The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

*The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

*The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011

I don't believe in the death-penalty, I think it's barbaric.

What if I killed your whole family. Then murdered your friends one by one. Then sent tape after tape to your house showing you all the killings. You would want me to just rot in prison for the rest of my life? To each his own I guess.

I guess I could send him tapes of me running across open fields while he was stuck in a small cell.

 

[Fappy]

Also, executions are more expensive than keeping a prisoner alive until they die naturally anyway... fun fact.

I don't know where you get your figures from but that is not only laughably incorrect but doesn't even pass muster with basic common sense... less the guy was arrested when he was like 80 and on his deathbed already

Most people sit on death-row for years, sometimes decades. The paperwork require to execute someone in America is enormous considering all of the appeals and all of that nonsense. Lets put it this way: if they admit they are guilty and don't try to appeal the case or fight it in anyway the execution will likely be much cheaper than life in prison. However, most people will fight these charges until the end and the government has to foot the bill when its all said and done. Multiple trials are extremely expensive.

and you think people who get life sentences don't get the same chances to appeal or won't fight the sentences? either way life or death they both get THE SAME chances to force more appeals and trials and burn money.. . except someone sent to death will always have less time to do so thus statistically cost less... if you remove the death penalty than not only are those people costing more for being imprisoned they also now have the whole rest of their lives to cost even more money with silly appeals and other "nonsense".. oh and then there is the fact that the they may WIN one of those appeals because of judicial bullshit tricks and get released even if they are guilty.. now instead of a dead criminal and some measure of justice we have a free criminal who wasted an asston of taxpayer money and is free to do it again

not to mention all your reasoning has nothing to do with the actual cost of executing someone but the cost of the bullshit the prison has to go through BECAUSE of the people like you who complain about it and force them to go through the extra work... if it wasn't for the bitching those people signed up for execution would be taken out back and shot in the head right after the court case

if you cared so much about innocents being killed and "justice" then you should be putting effort into reforming the justice system not a proven viable penalty

Also, check the link I put in my last post. There are plenty of studies out there that come to the same conclusion. Sure it would be cheap to take someone out behind a shed and shoot them in the head, but you have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they have committed the crime and that costs a lot of money to do. Too many innocent people ahve been executed in this country.

lol you should read it yourself... they are proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" after the first trial ends THE SAME AS ANYONE ELSE... it cost no more except for the fact stupid states like California feel the need to let them sit around in "special" sections which sap more money out because the prison can get away with claiming it cost more.. again that is the justice system, the private prisons and the people approving budget cost fault not the death penalty

Well that's the problem really isn't it. Not everyone says "no death penalty" because they don't like murderers getting executed (though I am one of them). Many say "no death penalty" BECAUSE the justice system is as flawed as it is. The fact that they can and have "proven" innocent men guilty and executed them is an incredibly alarming fact. Why should we have the ability to executive people if we can't even be 100% sure they are actually guilty.

This is a REALLY, REALLY LONG story published in the New Yorker I had to read in college, but its a really good read that puts a lot of this in perspective, I think. I don't expect you to read the whole thing (its 17 pages long), but I'd suggest you give it a shot. It brings up a lot of issues with the justice system and why the death penalty is too risky: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

 

[Mayhaps]

snip

It seems as though you hate people being able to make a case for themselves.
People have been proven innocent after being on death-row for a very long time.

"Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions."

California?s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually
*Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

*The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

*The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

*The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011

again do you people even read what you post as sources.. opeing line of that report

"Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions."

IT'S THE SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE ACTUAL DEATH PENALTY... Jesus it's at the top of the report

I very much read it. How do you propose we argue against the death penalty, if not pointing out the flaws of the system?

It's like people not being allowed to argue against the use of oil because it's the means we acquire and use it that's the problem.

edit: me and the guy above me seem to be saying the same thing, you don't have to reply to my post.