death penalty

[vladimir]

There is proof, it's called logical thought. There's no way to statistically record it - As I said, you can't very well walk up to someone on the street and ask them if the death penalty deterred them from murdering.

However, logical thought tells us that a sane person would take into consideration the fact that they could be sentenced to death if they commit murder, and from that we can in fact draw the conclusion that a percentage of people who think about that - No matter how small the percentage - Would not commit murder, because of the death penalty.

Again I say, this has nothing to do with the topic, if you want to debate this, make another thread. You won't be getting any more replies from me about it here.

what advantage does a sane person see in murdering someone when you will end up in prison for decades?

by the way, most murderers are not sane in the moment they act nor do they logically think about that they are doing, so they do not think about the death penalty before they act nor about prison.

 

[Anderton Prime]

vlad, you do realize this debate has no end? There is no chance in hell of you ever getting someone who supports the death penalty to change their mind, just like no one will ever change your mind to make you support it. You can't win. All you can do is type, type, and type some more.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

what advantage does a sane person see in murdering someone when you will end up in prison for decades?

Well I think it costs the taxpayer something like £30,000 a year to lock up each inmate, I can see a huge saving by having them all shot Although I'd have to cost in the price of bullets, maybe just let the relatives of the victims tear them apart.

Seriously though, the cost of looking after these people for decades, is a waste of money. For example Ian Huntley has to be protected from other inmates, and has had a special isolation cell built, with TV, DVD, ensuite bathroom and shower. He has security officers assigned to him 24hrs a day. I have no idea how much that all costs us each year. Also he has a suicide watch to prevent him killing himself...let him get on with it...if you don't know who he is put Soham Murders in google. Is there anyone that thinks he should live?

 

[Talentless]

I am already opposed to it, so I do not need convincing.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Anderton makes a good point (odd ) This debate could go on forever, and you are unlikely to change anyones mind.

The main downside I can see of the death penalty (morals aside) is the chance that the jury made a mistake.

 

[vladimir]

Well I think it costs the taxpayer something like £30,000 a year to lock up each inmate, I can see a huge saving by having them all shot Although I'd have to cost in the price of bullets, maybe just let the relatives of the victims tear them apart.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

Seriously though, the cost of looking after these people for decades, is a waste of money. For example Ian Huntley has to be protected from other inmates, and has had a special isolation cell built, with TV, DVD, ensuite bathroom and shower. He has security officers assigned to him 24hrs a day. I have no idea how much that all costs us each year. Also he has a suicide watch to prevent him killing himself...let him get on with it...if you don't know who he is put Soham Murders in google. Is there anyone that thinks he should live?

i absolutely agree with you upon that. such a person does not deserve any luxuries and if he wants to kill himself, fine, it is his right to do so and they should not stop him. i have no own TV let alone a DVD player, so i do not understand why a murderer needs one.

 

[Talentless]

If suicide is illegal for free men, it is likely illegal for incarcerated ones. A state cannot accept suicides in its prisons, especially since that would be negligent toward persons appealing their convictions. Being in prison for only a short period could adversely affect someone, and he might kill himself before justice can have a chance to free him, ahould he be innocent or have been tried improperly regardless of actual guilt for the crime for which he was convicted. And, for the death penalty advocates, suicide steals their revenge from them.

 

[ledhed]

why do you think someone has to be insane to murder ? For that matter what do you base your statement that most murderers are not sane the moment they act ?
If you are trying to make a point and back up your position it would be to your benifit to use facts not supposition. A gang member protecting his corner in North Philly from rival drug dealers makes a very sane decision to kill his competitors thinking he will not get caught. He's a murderer who miscalculated . He's not insane. A man decides to poison his wife who has been cheating on him for years and just happens to have a large life insurance policy. He's not insane he's a greedy vengefull husband who thinks he can get away with murder. How many INSANE murders can you name ?

 

[Ghost C]

by the way, most murderers are not sane in the moment they act nor do they logically think about that they are doing, so they do not think about the death penalty before they act nor about prison.

This is just a responsibility cop-out. Most murderers know exactly what they're doing when they do it, but say this, that, and the other to try and not get sent to jail (Or the chair).

That's like saying rapists aren't sane when they act, thieves aren't sane, etc, etc. I'd put my money on more than 90% of murderers knowing exactly what they were doing when they killed.

 

[vladimir]

suicide should not be illegal. it hardly helps anyway because you cannot punish a death person.






leadhed and ghost,

death penalty does neither stop the gang member nor the husband if they are sure they will get away with it. and neither does it stop the gang member who starts shooting at policemen who are chasing him nor the husband who kills his wife in just the moment she is telling him that she cheated on him again or the bullied pupil who is humuliated once again and gets home, takes his fathers gun and goes to school and starts a massacre or the worker who has been fired.

and if even sane persons still commit murder, because the think they can get away with it, then the death penalty does not effects them either.
most sane murderers think indeed that they will get away with it, hardly any criminal thinks he will be caught for sure.

burglars even steal in those nations were they get their hands chopped off...

 

[Tacet_Blue]

If suicide is illegal for free men, it is likely illegal for incarcerated ones.

I was just going to say that, although it is hard to prosecute someone for killing themselves It is also illegal in the UK to allow someone to commit suicide, if you could have prevented it. We're so civilized
Interestingly though I think it is still legal in Scotland, although that might have changed.

The luxuries that some inmates have really does anger the relatives, like you say vladimir there are people that are innocent that do not live in such comfort.

Edit:

why do you think someone has to be insane to murder ?

Actually if you are found guilty of murder, then there was proof of premeditation, otherwise you are found guilty of manslaughter. So by definition murderers are responsible for their actions

 

[Talentless]

It might be so that most of those convicted are actually guilty and deserve to die. And
most of those convictions might ha come from fair trials. But, from my moral perspective, and to be honest, have trouble with killing, even the worst of them, because I shall not have been present for nearly all of their crimes, and because of the finality of such a decision. It is selfish to taxpayer's, but I see the burden of keeping someone alive as something to be more morally bound to than issues of cost. In war and self defense their is an apparent need for immediate action, perhaps even what some might deem as unethical. In prison, you inherently have far more control. The necessity is far less; even more so if proper confinement is in use.

 

[Talentless]

Suicide is a difficult issue. I would like to be libertarian about it, but, unfortunately it incurs two costs. It would be unethical to most to allow others to go through legal suicide without putting such persons through a rigor of tests, and ultimately trying to convince them not to kill themselves (cost to health care), and it diverts attention from government bodies which could serve people in more immediate and less voluntary need. And who knows how many will try it through the legal means? I acknowledge the hypocrisy in mentioning the cost factor when I said that's less important than protecting life in my contention on executions, but I am more thinking about the time consumed by the police to try to prevent someone from killing themselves, something the please likely shall be doing regardless of the legality of suicide. If someone wants to kill himself, he should at least learn to do it silently and privately, and where he cannot be discovered in time to be saved if he truly wants to die.

 

[ledhed]

So what about the guy who ponders killing his wife and decides not to only because he thinks her death is not worth the death penalty if he's caught ? Was it a deterent to him ?
Or how about the gang member who decides to just beat his competition with a baseball bat instead of shooting them for fear he may get the death sentance ? Was it a deterance ? Or how about the bank robbers who decide to use a fake bomb intead of a gun to rob a bank only because they do not want to die for a robbery but they can accept 10 years if they get caught. Was it a deterance in that case ? How many crimes are not ever commited because the person who is inclined to do the act is detered by the thought of punishment ? Why do you seem to think that a crime is inevitable reguardless of the punishment ?

 

[demon of speed]

Well I think it costs the taxpayer something like £30,000 a year to lock up each inmate, I can see a huge saving by having them all shot Although I'd have to cost in the price of bullets, maybe just let the relatives of the victims tear them apart.

Seriously though, the cost of looking after these people for decades, is a waste of money. For example Ian Huntley has to be protected from other inmates, and has had a special isolation cell built, with TV, DVD, ensuite bathroom and shower. He has security officers assigned to him 24hrs a day. I have no idea how much that all costs us each year. Also he has a suicide watch to prevent him killing himself...let him get on with it...if you don't know who he is put Soham Murders in google. Is there anyone that thinks he should live?

He doesn't deserve to live.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

So what about the guy who ponders killing his wife and decides not to only because he thinks her death is not worth the death penalty if he's caught ? Was it a deterent to him ?
[snip]
Why do you seem to think that a crime is inevitable reguardless of the punishment ?

I agree with what you are saying there ledhed...but most criminals don't actually think they will ever be caught.

@demon of speed: I see you are from the UK and you probably remember the trial and the coverage well. The public outcry against Huntley, the call for the death sentence to come back, the image of those two girls smiling just hours before their death. I'd kill Huntley myself, but maybe death is too good for him.

Its a tough call, but its probably best for the UK that we don't have the death sentence (from a moral stance), although rather than pamper murderers I think they should rot in a cold stone cell with bread and water till the ends of their lives.

Damm it, I'm going to have to chill out, thinking of Soham has made me

 

[ledhed]

Actually the criminals I have had contact with think getting caught is just the cost of doing business and make decisions on that basis. Drug dealers figure on getting caught sooner or later and figure on doing as well as they can while they can and when they get caught hope to beat or get over on the system. Most criminals consider getting caught and what will happen before they do the crime. At least in my experiance. Even the ones that think they wont get caught at least consider what may happen if they do.
I know a few people personaly that have chosen not to do a crime because they did not think the punishment if caught was worth the results of the crime. so telling me that the death penalty is not a deterrent is useless . let me ask this if you knew for certain that the death penalty would deter and prevent 3 murders from happening would you be for it or against it ?

 

[wheellift]

Here in Illinios there used to be an express line for deathrow inmates. Until Gov. Ryan (liberal eliteist scum) pardoned everyone from the needle...

 

[Gil]

MOst people who commit a planned murder, plan to not be caught.
Murders that are crimes of passion are a bit different.
They are mistakes and in a lot of cases should be treated that way.
But stabbing a person 23 times, is intentional.
Dismembering someone is usually intentiona.
A case can be made for shooting someone several times in self defense. But if person shoots another person 12 or 14 times, with a gun that holds 6 bullets, that is intentional.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. It is a punishment. Like a punishment for a child is intended to keep them from doing the same forbidden thing, the death penalty keeps guys like that Manson fellow from living next door to you. Keep in mind that he is indeed eligible to be paroled. The CA parole board (wisely) doesn't parole him.

This is a winless debate. Those that believe that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment will likely not change their minds. Those that believe that it is a barbaric punishment will not change their views either.

Granted the courts shouldn't willy-nilly be imposing the death penalty.
Scott Peterson has been found guilty and is up for sentencing next week. His crimes are no less heinous than Charles Manson's and Peterson may be facing the death penalty, yet Manson is eligible to be paroled.

I believe that some consistency is in order...
Do you want convicted murderers or those that have tried to

 

[vladimir]

let me ask this if you knew for certain that the death penalty would deter and prevent 3 murders from happening would you be for it or against it ?

if i knew for sure, i would be for it. but someone who intentionally murders should see no great difference between death penalty and prison for the rest of his life. either way you have no advantage from your act and your life is screwed.

personally i would even prefer to be killed instead of spending the rest of my life in prison because the latter is surely the worse experience...

 

[Danoff]

by the way, most murderers are not sane in the moment they act nor do they logically think about that they are doing, so they do not think about the death penalty before they act nor about prison.

By that logic, prison is not a deterrant either...

(perhaps you should rethink your logic)

 

[Arwin]

1. Death penalty cannot be revoked if a mistake was made. Thanks to DNA research a lot of mistakes have been uncovered.
2. Dealth penalty is not cheaper. Least of all in the U.S.
3. Difference between the chair and life-time imprisonment has little effect on people desperate enough to commit such a serious crime.

I'd also like to know what sane person would commit a non-passionate crime by stabbing someone 23 times. Did he think 23 times was the exact number required to kill this person? Did he just stab until the person stopped moving? Was he aiming for all 23 spots in the body that could kill a person?

I've also repeatedly see people argue that revenge is a good reason for murderers to get the death penalty - eye-for-an-eye and all that. Doesn't that make the death penalty a crime of passion?

It's a tyring old debate, but I never get tired of pointing out inconsistencies, especially if they lead to constitutional manslaughter. But sometimes I think that maybe in a country where gunslinging is thought to prevent crime, poverty is accepted and your own fault, seeking revenge is a virtue not a vice, and caring for your neighbour is considered a gross neglect of your responsibility to yourself, and the loss of innocent lives is acceptable as long as you mostly take guilty ones, there really are no inconsistencies and to you the death penalty is the best thing since way before sliced bread.

Fun Assignment:
Try to determine what in that last sentence was passion and what was reason (hint: it's not 100% either way)

 

[ledhed]

I never get tired of pointing out suppositions that are incorrect. Arwin has given you two big ones . You suppose the death penalty is not cheaper than what exactly ? and you suppose only desperate people murder and further that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Its an old debate but aside from the, " Its wrong for the state to kill " or just plain old , "its wrong to kill" , the rest of the arguments against the death penalty are bogus or just bullpies.

 

[vladimir]

By that logic, prison is not a deterrant either...

(perhaps you should rethink your logic)

prison is no deterrant for those who commit such a crime without thinking about it.



ledhed,

deterrence:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

cost:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

 

[ledhed]

This proves nothing both pro and anti provide so called facts, studies and statistics to prove thier side of the argument. I have read both sides arguments and still do looking for something new. But my personal experiances belie the studies and statistics that TRY to say the death penalty is not a deterrance. It simply IS , and knowing that I call into question studies and statistics that would try to prove to me otherwise. The same way I would question a study and statistic that told me the earth was square.
In my opinion you either think killing is wrong PERIOD so the death penalty is wrong period.
Or you believe that at times for the greater good of society some scum need to die after they have killed in an unlawfull manner other members of society. I have no problem with killing murders. They can call me if they need a volunteer to pull the switch or press the button or whatever.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Resources.htm
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/procon.html
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15525046/ny_sida_3.htm
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15525046/
By now you get the point right ? Links will not make up your mind you either believe in that form of justice for the victims and for society or you do not. The studies and statistics are full of it.
I suggest a better way to decide. visit with the family of a victim of murder and if you can ,take a look at the results of a murder. look at the victim and see for yourself what they have lost to the murderer. look around and see what it does to the people that surround the family , the nieghbors the policemen etc. Wiegh that against the scum who did it.

 

[Arwin]

This proves nothing ....

Just say outright ledhed, that you are willing to be convicted and killed innocently and think any other innocent individual that you know should voluntarily do so too for the greater good of the death penalty, and I'll classify you under the people who subscribe to

"gunslinging is thought to prevent crime, poverty is accepted and your own fault, seeking revenge is a virtue not a vice, and caring for your neighbour is considered a gross neglect of your responsibility to yourself, and the loss of innocent lives is acceptable as long as you mostly take guilty ones, there really are no inconsistencies and to you the death penalty is the best thing since way before sliced bread. "

... and bother you no longer.

 

[Ghost C]

It's a tyring old debate, but I never get tired of pointing out inconsistencies, especially if they lead to constitutional manslaughter. But sometimes I think that maybe in a country where gunslinging is thought to prevent crime, poverty is accepted and your own fault, seeking revenge is a virtue not a vice, and caring for your neighbour is considered a gross neglect of your responsibility to yourself, and the loss of innocent lives is acceptable as long as you mostly take guilty ones, there really are no inconsistencies and to you the death penalty is the best thing since way before sliced bread.

Fun Assignment:
Try to determine what in that last sentence was passion and what was reason (hint: it's not 100% either way)

Hint: It's 100% bull****. Your propaganda serves no purpose in this debate, so how about keeping it out of here?

I still don't see what the problem with the death penalty is. It's only used on people who commit Murder 1, which is premeditated murder. It's only used on people who are legally declared sane by a state psychologist. It's not like we go around prisons shooting murderers in the head with 9mm pistols because we think it's fun, as much as some of you would like to believe.

 

[ledhed]

No one is willing to be convicted and killed innocently and thats bullpie and you know it.
Is that the best argument you can give ? I can see you talking to the father of a 14 year old girl after she has been raped and murdered and her killer has confessed trying to explain how you feel his not getting the death penalty is a good thing. You keep standing on your soap box in your utopia bizzaro world. In the real world there are victims and criminals . I support the rights of the Victims.

 

[vladimir]

whatever you do, will not help the victim.


btw, ledhed, what do you think about the following situation:
the girl is raped and killed, when the father finds it out, he decides to bring his gun into court and shoot the scum himself, and so he does.
what should be done?

 

[Arwin]

No one is willing to be convicted and killed innocently and thats bullpie and you know it.

Is that the best argument you can give ?

Yes this is certainly one of my most important arguments against it. Quite possibly the only thing worse I can think of than a girl of 14 being raped and murdered, is being publicly tried, convicted and executed for this crime innocently.

I can see you talking to the father of a 14 year old girl after she has been raped and murdered and her killer has confessed trying to explain how you feel his not getting the death penalty is a good thing.

To some people you don't even have to explain it.

You keep standing on your soap box in your utopia bizzaro world.

This Utopia Bizzaro World exists and it's pretty big. Just look a little outside your own state borders.

In the real world there are victims and criminals . I support the rights of the Victims.

The rights of victims to become killers. Nice world. Revenge doesn't solve anything, it just creates new problems. The parents would have something to focus on when having the murderer killed sure, but after that they still have to deal with their loss as if they would have otherwise. In fact, there are good indications that knowing more about the killer's background and eventually (sometimes) even talking to him or communicating in other ways is much more effective with dealing with the pain, anger and frustration than anything else.