Capital Punishment

[LeMansAid]

Those whom have been convicted.

Jailing them doesnt work as they tend to re offend.

Odd, you answered my question, even though that was not what was re-iterated. Even then, I had posted that if you arrived at the answer you've now stated, then the follow-up questions had already been posed......

What kind of pedophile? One who likes to look at pictures, one who likes to take pictures or one who likes to rape children - or is it all the same level of offence?

Since we're now seemingly addressing people convicted of paedophilia, this actually could well include non-paedophiles convicted of paedophilia as well. Should they also be shot? Should an eighteen year old guy be shot if he's found to have revealing photos of his fifteen year old girlfriend, that she sent to his phone? He would be in possession of child pornography. If he showed one of his friends, should they also be shot? If you looked at it without being told of, or questioning her of-age-ness, should you be shot? If one of the friends was a paedophile that had a thing for just below consent girls, and copied the photo, should they be shot? Just to be clear, that last one is an actual paedophile in possession of child pornography. How about if the same person had sex with a fifteen year old?

Really though, I don't think you were after a discussion at all. Rather, just wanting to puff your chest out. We've had plenty enough ruthless nonsense bravado aimed at paedophiles over the years. If we want them to come out of their dark corner and become less covert and dangerous, we're going to need to show compassion and empathy for a people burdened with an affliction not of their own choosing. Sometimes we'll find people annoying and want to punch them. In that moment we are equal to the base state of a paedophile. We want to perform an action that would infringe on a basic human right of another. We make our choice, they make theirs.

Ultimately, we're not better, we're just lucky.

 

[Danoff]

Those whom have been convicted.

Jailing them doesnt work as they tend to re offend.

Capital punishment is not really about whether someone is likely to re-offend. It's also not about saving money (usually it costs more, especially in the court system to execute). I definitely don't support it for someone who has a disorder like pedophilia. Capital punishment is not something that can be corrected. Go watch Making a Murderer and tell me that the court system would never get it wrong when it comes to who is guilty of a top offense.

It should be reserved for cases like the Aurora theater shooting in CO where the person is clearly guilty of premeditated mass murder, and I think it should mostly be used as a carrot to get the person to plea bargain for life in prison. It saves so much money in prosecution fees if they plea bargain. They can rack up a bill in appeals that far exceeds the cost of life in prison.

 

[ryzno]

Capital punishment is not really about whether someone is likely to re-offend. It's also not about saving money (usually it costs more, especially in the court system to execute). I definitely don't support it for someone who has a disorder like pedophilia. Capital punishment is not something that can be corrected. Go watch Making a Murderer and tell me that the court system would never get it wrong when it comes to who is guilty of a top offense.

It should be reserved for cases like the Aurora theater shooting in CO where the person is clearly guilty of premeditated mass murder, and I think it should mostly be used as a carrot to get the person to plea bargain for life in prison. It saves so much money in prosecution fees if they plea bargain. They can rack up a bill in appeals that far exceeds the cost of life in prison.

Death row costs the tax payers $150+ a day, so that is $54,750 a year(more than I make in a year). We just had an inmate in GA who killed a police officer finally be put to death after 23 years of appeals. It cost us $1,259,250 just for his housing. He would only file an appeal when they mentioned they were going to kill him. It was not cause he was innocent, he simply didn't want to die.

They should be allowed two appeals and that is it. He was guilty as hell and everyone knew it.
Also his last attempt at an appeal was 5 years prior to the final appeal when the finally decided to kill him. The prison system is just as guilty of milking the system. That said his legal bill was no where near $1.2 million. They might have worked 2 out of the 23 years he was locked up.(we're talking public defenders not elite lawyers.
Just like the dude in CO he should been killed on the spot, not wasting our tax money same with the kid in SC. The should be limited also in appeals. How can the court be called for double jeopardy if they change their mind but the criminal can appeal till he dies? The criminal has more rights than the damn victims and that is sad.

 

[Danoff]

Death row costs the tax payers $150+ a day, so that is $54,750 a year(more than I make in a year). We just had an inmate in GA who killed a police officer finally be put to death after 23 years of appeals. It cost us $1,259,250 just for his housing. He would only file an appeal when they mentioned they were going to kill him. It was not cause he was innocent, he simply didn't want to die.

They should be allowed two appeals and that is it. He was guilty as hell and everyone knew it.
Also his last attempt at an appeal was 5 years prior to the final appeal when the finally decided to kill him. The prison system is just as guilty of milking the system. That said his legal bill was no where near $1.2 million. They might have worked 2 out of the 23 years he was locked up.(we're talking public defenders not elite lawyers.
Just like the dude in CO he should been killed on the spot, not wasting our tax money same with the kid in SC. The should be limited also in appeals. How can the court be called for double jeopardy if they change their mind but the criminal can appeal till he dies? The criminal has more rights than the damn victims and that is sad.

Judge, Jury, DA Prosecutor, Public Defender, all of it comes out of tax dollars. 23 years of appeals means way more than 1.2 mil. Especially when you're dealing with a public defender, you actually have tax dollars on both sides of the case and tax dollars sitting at the bench and in the jury box.

Not really much in the way of actual tax dollars in the jury box, but tons of lost productivity from the people in the jury box.

 

[xyloscissor]

There is an amount of social responsibility in some of these cases, the question that comes to me is if the criminal is simply hard wired or taught or any combination of it all. The idea is to limit the behavior as much as possible but in a humane way.

It doesn't make sense to me that we will not execute those who openly ask to be, why not? We need to respect one's right to their own life, if they go directly against the law they must pay for that but we must question our laws as well as our actions.

I believe that our society needs some serious correction when things like someone dying based on a facebook page occur.

 

[Draggon]

It doesn't make sense to me that we will not execute those who openly ask to be, why not? We need to respect one's right to their own life, if they go directly against the law they must pay for that but we must question our laws as well as our actions.

I wondered about this very thing and do not understand why the system prevents someone from a speedy execution, should they desire that. I would think that if its about punishing the convicted person before they are executed, why even have the death penalty. Granted, I've not been in prison, but from where I sit, a life sentence would be worse than death.

 

[Danoff]

California makes everything expensive.

It'd be hard to calculate. Even harder to calculate is the cost of attorneys that want to make a name for themselves by getting the death penalty when the accused was willing to plead guilty for life in prison in exchange for avoiding the death penalty.




The above is a great example of how the death penalty can save $$$$ as long as the attorneys involved understand how it's supposed to work. That attorney should be fired. The death penalty should only ever be used in cases where the accused is absolutely slam-dunk guilty of horrendous offenses and unwilling to plea bargain (in other words... very rare). The money lost due to lengthy appeals on a few example cases will pale in comparison to the savings from avoiding lengthy trials.

My wife was livid when she heard they were not going to accept Holmes's plea bargain.

Edit:

Another thought on the death penalty (this thread is about the death penalty right?). California has got to be the main place where organizations will line up to throw money at fighting death penalty cases just for the purpose of making it difficult. If they can get it abolished in CA because they make it expensive, that will only encourage more money to be thrown at defending these guys.

I did read it. Doesn't it say it should only be USED in a very rare amount of cases and in those cases it would save money on a lengthy trial process and incarceration?

"Used" meaning actually try to obtain that sentence. In other words, every single time someone offers a plea bargain for life in prison without parole, it should get automatically accepted. No thought behind it whatsoever... take the deal. The only cases where someone should be prosecuting to obtain a sentence of the death penalty should be the rare cases I described above. Every time that DOESN'T happen because a plea bargain was agreed upon, the existence of the death penalty saves money even though it was not used.

If the death penalty doesn't exist, no one will ever plea bargain for life in prison without parole - because that'd be the worst possible outcome.

 

[UKMikey]

"Used" meaning actually try to obtain that sentence. In other words, every single time someone offers a plea bargain for life in prison without parole, it should get automatically accepted. No thought behind it whatsoever... take the deal. The only cases where someone should be prosecuting to obtain a sentence of the death penalty should be the rare cases I described above. Every time that DOESN'T happen because a plea bargain was agreed upon, the existence of the death penalty saves money even though it was not used.

If the death penalty doesn't exist, no one will ever plea bargain for life in prison without parole - because that'd be the worst possible outcome.

For me of course financial considerations aren't the primary ones but I'm wondering if this'd be enough of a compelling reason to introduce the death penalty into states which don't have it currently.

 

[Danoff]

For me of course financial considerations aren't the primary ones but I'm wondering if this'd be enough of a compelling reason to introduce the death penalty into states which don't have it currently.

So the big picture on the death penalty is that it's not morally required, but it's not morally forbidden. In order to be morally against the death penalty you basically have to argue against self-defense. If someone is trying to kill you, can you morally use deadly force against them? Not very many people say no to that. That is the death penalty in a nutshell, someone is guilty of attempted murder and you're sentencing them to death for it. The reasons that you're able to do that don't go away with time or circumstance. That person has shown an inability to observe your right to life, that doesn't change later when they're in prison.

But just because they've forfeit their right to life doesn't mean that you have to kill them. There are all sorts of practical reasons not to, in fact. From a pragmatic standpoint I like the existence of the death penalty as a bargaining chip to convince someone to avoid a lengthy expensive trial, but actually pursuing it against someone is usually a waste of time and money. It should only be done in example cases.

...and yes, I think that to-get-people-to-plea-bargain is a decent reason to introduce it in a state that doesn't have it.

 

[UKMikey]

But just because they've forfeit their right to life doesn't mean that you have to kill them. There are all sorts of practical reasons not to, in fact. From a pragmatic standpoint I like the existence of the death penalty as a bargaining chip to convince someone to avoid a lengthy expensive trial, but actually pursuing it against someone is usually a waste of time and money. It should only be done in example cases.

I think I would have a problem with a small number of people being executed "pour encourager les autres" if they weren't a danger to society in general. Hopefully this wouldn't be the case.

 

[Danoff]

I think I would have a problem with a small number of people being executed "pour encourager les autres" if they weren't a danger to society in general. Hopefully this wouldn't be the case.

Huh? Who said anything about executing someone who wasn't a danger to society?

 

[UKMikey]

Huh? Who said anything about executing someone who wasn't a danger to society?

People are being executed who aren't a danger to society in general. Kelly Gissendaner for example. I'm not sure keeping the DP around while lawyers learn to use it correctly is preferable to keeping it off the books altogether until supporting legislation can be drafted up to automatically grant plea bargains to anyone who'd rather have life in parole, but it's not my money that we're talking about saving.

 

[Danoff]

People are being executed who aren't a danger to society in general. Kelly Gissendaner for example. I'm not sure keeping the DP around while lawyers learn to use it correctly is preferable to keeping it off the books altogether until supporting legislation can be drafted up to automatically grant plea bargains to anyone who'd rather have life in parole, but it's not my money that we're talking about saving.

Yea I wouldn't support executing someone like Gissendaner (although I'm not sure it's super clear that she's not a danger to society). There's no question the existence of the death penalty generates plea bargains. In some cases, prosecutors are dumb (and should be fired for being dumb), but it does convince people to plead guilty.

 

[UKMikey]

Yea I wouldn't support executing someone like Gissendaner (although I'm not sure it's super clear that she's not a danger to society). There's no question the existence of the death penalty generates plea bargains. In some cases, prosecutors are dumb (and should be fired for being dumb), but it does convince people to plead guilty.

"It's not super clear that she's not a danger to society" isn't a good enough reason to throw the switch in my opinion.

[EDIT] Reading further into the case though she definitely comes across as a wrong 'un whom I'd be happy to see spend the rest of her life in prison.

 

[Danoff]

"It's not super clear that she's not a danger to society" isn't a good enough reason to throw the switch in my opinion.

Agreed.

 

[Epic B]

Personally, I believe capital punishment should not be allowed under any circumstances. Capital punishment is just too "final", especially if the accused turns out to be innocent but they've been executed, which may open up the possibility for lawsuits and whatnot. That's one potential reason why I'd say no to it. I just think it goes further than it needs to.

I wondered about this very thing and do not understand why the system prevents someone from a speedy execution, should they desire that. I would think that if its about punishing the convicted person before they are executed, why even have the death penalty. Granted, I've not been in prison, but from where I sit, a life sentence would be worse than death.

I wouldn't call that a bad reason. This could also tie into the debate of whether terminally ill patients should be able to choose to die. It's at least similar. I've also never been in prison, so that sways my thoughts too (living in a country that abolished the death penalty years ago may also be worth something). This scenario is stepping into an iffy moral grey area.

 

[stonesfan129]

I'm against capital punishment in any case. There have been too many instances where a sentence was handed down and then later they find that the person is innocent.

 

[polysmut]

Personally, I believe capital punishment should not be allowed under any circumstances. Capital punishment is just too "final", especially if the accused turns out to be innocent but they've been executed, which may open up the possibility for lawsuits and whatnot. That's one potential reason why I'd say no to it. I just think it goes further than it needs to.

There's a bigger reason not to kill innocent people than the possibility of law suits.

 

[Liquid]

This seems like the most appropriate place to share this opinion;

There is no doubt in my mind that if public executions were brought back in western countries, people would flock to them in the hundreds of thousands. Maximum attendance each and every time no matter what the crime.

Charge admission and governments would raise lots of money; a very morbid curiosity.

 

[Northstar]

There is no doubt in my mind that if public executions were brought back in western countries, people would flock to them in the hundreds of thousands. Maximum attendance each and every time no matter what the crime.

I wouldn't be surprised considering how popular combat sports still are, not to mention the "torture porn" horror movies that have been popular in the last 15 years or so. Humanity certainly still has the blood lust that it had in the times of gladiators, even if we don't want to admit it.

 

[polysmut]

This seems like the most appropriate place to share this opinion;

There is no doubt in my mind that if public executions were brought back in western countries, people would flock to them in the hundreds of thousands. Maximum attendance each and every time no matter what the crime.

Charge admission and governments would raise lots of money; a very morbid curiosity.

If it happened as part of the legal process then I'd prefer attendance to be equally available to a citizen who has no money.

 

[PeterJB]

You could charge extra for gallow-side seats and sell programs explaining the backstory of the criminal and who else on death row to look out for in the judicial year.

 

[UKMikey]

You could charge extra for gallow-side seats and sell programs explaining the backstory of the criminal and who else on death row to look out for in the judicial year.

Perhaps Sky could provide virtual 360 views so snuff porn enthusiasts could get the full visceral experience.

 

[Epic B]

This seems like the most appropriate place to share this opinion;

There is no doubt in my mind that if public executions were brought back in western countries, people would flock to them in the hundreds of thousands. Maximum attendance each and every time no matter what the crime.

Charge admission and governments would raise lots of money; a very morbid curiosity.

You're probably not wrong but I would not endorse it even if capital punishment is on the books.

If capital punishment is death, is anything else lowercase punishment?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If capital punishment is death, is anything else lowercase punishment?

Only if you misunderstand capital

 

[Danoff]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christ...-young-daughters-pregnant-wife-shanann-watts/

This is the death penalty at work! This total monster killed his two children and his pregnant wife. He plead guilty in exchange only for waiving the death penalty. Beautiful. Case closed, money and much additional trauma saved, everybody go home and lock this 'hat up for the rest of his life.

 

[Liquid]

I find Gorman's anecdote really interesting.

It's a bit like when people suggest bringing back national service or making a military draft compulsory... yeah, you should be the ones to do it if you're the ones who endorse it.

 

[UKMikey]

I find Gorman's anecdote really interesting.

It's a bit like when people suggest bringing back national service or making a military draft compulsory... yeah, you should be the ones to do it if you're the ones who endorse it.

I have a feeling they would twist it around so a random No voter would be killed if a freed murderer went on to kill somebody else.

 

[Danoff]

opposing the death penalty is also a liberal-indicating trait, although that's not a view that's consistently held among libertarians I know (including me - it's the hardest question for me on the compass test).

That might be because whether or not to institute the death penalty is not strictly required morally. Why is this a tough question for you? I can think of reasons of course, but I'm wondering what yours are.

 

[TexRex]

I wonder if motivations for death penalty opposition come into play with regards to it being a liberal-indicating trait.

I absolutely believe there are those out there for whom the opportunity to keep breathing, albeit removed from society with no possibility of reintegration, is simply unacceptable. "Rehabilitation" be damned.

For me, the problem with execution is really a problem with a flawed criminal justice system. Entirely too many people have been determined to have been wrongfully convicted (even the guilty, because getting the right person for the wrong reason isn't right), however it came to happen, and death is absolute. There is no "Sorry about that, here's your life back."