News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cut Death
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the appropriateness of the death penalty for heinous crimes with clear guilt, emphasizing that some believe it should be executed swiftly after sentencing. Participants express strong opinions on the nature of punishment, with some arguing that the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent, while others question its effectiveness and morality. The conversation also touches on the idea that not all crimes should receive the same punishment, particularly distinguishing between violent offenses and lesser crimes. Concerns about wrongful executions and the financial implications of lengthy appeals are raised, highlighting the complexity of the issue. Ultimately, the debate reflects deep divisions on the role of punishment in society and the justice system.
  • #391
zomgwtf said:
Deterence does not work.

Should we give up on the criminal justice system entirely, then?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #392
zomgwtf said:
They are never innocent? Really? You actually believe without a doubt in your mind that every single person ever put to death was guilty of the crime they were convicted of? I have to call ******** on that one, too many people are later found innocent after being convicted for me to think that somehow capital crime cases get it right everytime 100% no doubts.

I hope this wasn't aimed at me based on my comments. I have never said they are all guilty. Only that they were proven guilty in a court of law. There is a difference.

Actually Guilty = committed the crime.
Proven guilty in a court of law = there was enough evidence to show they committed the crime vs the evidence they are innocent. This simply means you couldn't prove your innocence, not that you actually committed the crime.

As wll, I've read here in this thread people thinking it saves money. Really? Citations for this? Everything I've ever read states that it costs taxpayers a hell of a lot more to keep the death penalty vs. sentencing life without parole.

I gave you a link. In the UK, it is costing an average of £390,000 per ten years to lock someone up. Are you seriously going to tell me it is more expensive to execute someone? And that's on the basis they die naturally within ten years of receiving life without parole. They could spend the next 50 years of their life in prison costing nearly 2 million pounds to the tax payer.
Now unless you can cite something showing the cost of execution being higher than life without parole I suggest you let this go.

I mean why are death rates consistently lower or equal in states without death penalty vs. those with? If it were such a great deterent as has been suggested then it would be completely logical that murder rates would be extremely high in states without the death penalty.

You could equally apply that those states with the death penalty are more violent than those without and it is deterring people from committing violent crimes. Therefore lowering the crime rate. You know, the whole correlation not implying causation thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #393
zomgwtf said:
Who exactly is being let go? Guilty criminals? Where? Where you live?

In this case I was referring to being let go from the death penalty. How many people are we willing to pay to keep in prison simply on the off chance they are innocent.

As I've said consistently before, unless you can give numbers showing the guilty:innocent ratio for convictions, no one here can draw a conclusion. Until those numbers are shown we can't say whether or not there is a major problem with people being wrongly convicted in unreasonable amounts.
 
  • #394
CRGreathouse said:
Should we give up on the criminal justice system entirely, then?

I should have made it more clear: The Death Penalty does not work as a deterance.
 
  • #395
jarednjames said:
I gave you a link. In the UK, it is costing an average of £390,000 per ten years to lock someone up. Are you seriously going to tell me it is more expensive to execute someone? And that's on the basis they die naturally within ten years of receiving life without parole. They could spend the next 50 years of their life in prison costing nearly 2 million pounds to the tax payer.
Now unless you can cite something showing the cost of execution being higher than life without parole I suggest you let this go.
50 years in prison costing 2 million. The average cost of a death penalty case in Texas is 2.3 million and I'm not thinking they spend 50 years in the system.

Death penalty cases are extremely expensive. I do not think that using the death penalty saves any money. YOU are making the claim that it does so YOU need to provide citations not me.

By the way:
I'm not saying we shouldn't use the death penalty simply because it costs more. Because if that were the case then why not just put everyone on probation since incarceration costs more.
You could equally apply that those states with the death penalty are more violent than those without and it is deterring people from committing violent crimes. Therefore lowering the crime rate. You know, the whole correlation not implying causation thing.
Sure. I guess that mystically when places abolish the death penalty magically all those murderers that it was detering suddenly don't want to murder anymore. As well my entire statement was that ther WA NO PROOF for correlation OR causation. People who support the death penatly are, THEY need to prove that.
 
  • #396
zomgwtf said:
50 years in prison costing 2 million. The average cost of a death penalty case in Texas is 2.3 million and I'm not thinking they spend 50 years in the system.

Death penalty cases are extremely expensive. I do not think that using the death penalty saves any money. YOU are making the claim that it does so YOU need to provide citations not me.

I'd like to see a citation for the cost of the death penalty before I respond, you made the claim regarding the cost of 2.3 million and so you need to provide the reference.

Also, is that the cost of the trial as well or just the cost of execution? My figures don't include the trial so if yours does it isn't a fair comparison.

And what is your currency?
 
Last edited:
  • #397
jarednjames said:
A human who has taken the life or ruined the life of another human. Should they be a part of society? No.

What do you mean "should/shouldn't"? They are. Full stop.

Kicking them out of the club is denial.

jarednjames said:
But then why should a society who they have committed such a crime against be forced to pay to keep them in what I consider 'stable' conditions? Ignoring quality, 3 meals a day, a bed, bathroom facilities, entertainment (again depending where you are it will differ), education, healthcare.

When there are homeless people who need most of these things but can't get help. When there are people who can't afford the £50,000 cancer treatment and have to live with the fact there is a cure, but they can't have it and so will suffer and die, and yet it's costing millions to maintain prisoners who don't deserve to be alive let alone paid to live by tax payers. I find this the ultimate irony.
This is a red herring. If you want to discuss the quality of conditions of incarceration, start a new thread.
 
  • #398
DaveC426913 said:
What do you mean "should/shouldn't"? They are. Full stop.

Kicking them out of the club is denial.

I'm not denying they were part of society, I'm simply saying that they don't deserve to be. They are a minority and a dangerous one at that. They don't deserve to be part of society and given what they are capable of, should be removed to prevent it occurring. You may call it denial, I call it actively working to remove threats.

This is a red herring. If you want to discuss the quality of conditions of incarceration, start a new thread.

I disagree, this thread is about giving the death sentence to 'cut and dried cases'. As such, it is important we look at the alternatives to doing so. I don't see where this thread was constrained to the US and I think looking at the UK's situation regarding similar circumstances can give us a good comparison and some insight about the alternatives to going straight to the death sentences.

I'm not saying discuss the conditions in prisons, but they are certainly a factor in deciding whether or not the death sentence is appropriate, especially given the costs linked to the various punishments.
 
  • #399
jarednjames said:
A human who has taken the life or ruined the life of another human. Should they be a part of society? No.

Humans ruin the life / take the life of others frequently - as in war .. as in 'Shock And Awe' for instance. State sponsored killing. I wonder how we reconcile that ?
 
  • #400
DaveC426913 said:
I disagree. I don't think the issue is about guilt at all. I think it's about why a society would enact a death penalty at all.

What I was getting at, was that way and beyond the consideration of whether the death penalty is good or bad, we would have to accept that with it, we are likely to kill innocent people, as displayed in the two Australian examples in my earlier post. That, IMO, is abundant reason not to have it.

Other than that, I don't know. There are plenty of solid arguments for and against.
 
Last edited:
  • #401
jarednjames said:
I'm not denying they were part of society, I'm simply saying that they don't deserve to be.
They are a product of society. We cannot retroactively decide they were born on the Moon.

Yes, we can isolate them from innocent people, but killing them is killing ourselves.
jarednjames said:
I disagree, this thread is about giving the death sentence to 'cut and dried cases'. As such, it is important we look at the alternatives to doing so..

Before concerning ourselves with the economics and cost-efficiency of doing so, we should first determijne if it is the Right thing to do at all. This thread, in asking its question makes too big an assumption.
 
  • #402
DaveC426913 said:
They are a product of society. We cannot retroactively decide they were born on the Moon.

That's a very important point. Society IS what it is, ie, everything in it - from the best to the worst - the fraudsters, the dope pedlers, the rapists, the child molesters, the violent murderers ..

To isolate the worst and call them 'out of society' doesn't make much sense.
 
  • #403
skeptic2 said:
Did you leave out deterrence intentionally?
Actually no. I was thinking of "after the fact" and "regarding the perpetrator." So add
"As a lesson to others" to my list. And I do think that is a valid point; but as been noted, It is arguable as to whether or not it is effective as such (We have the paradoxical case of not being able to show proof of an event that didn't happen). I can't make a call on either side (I'm a GD moderate!).By the way, I would not lose a moment's peace if the Cheshire invasion duo received the death penalty, although I do think they should sit in a tiny cell with nothing but the images of their victims visible through their tiny bars.
 
  • #405
alt said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/27/2256398.htm

.. and there's another one. How would you feel going to the gallows innocent ?

Frusterated in addition to the usual pants-wetting terror. I might feel a bit better than a truly guilty person... I know what you mean though.
 
  • #406
alt said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/27/2256398.htm

.. and there's another one. How would you feel going to the gallows innocent ?

If you must know, after seeing such a miscarriage of justice (for I would see it that way, if I were in that position), I'd try to see how many people I could take with me.

But I'm not entirely sane, I think. I especially wouldn't be entirely sane after sitting through that, and knowing what's ahead in my life.
 
  • #407
alt said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/27/2256398.htm

.. and there's another one. How would you feel going to the gallows innocent ?
From 1922? Things have really changed since then. Should we go back through history and list all people wrongfully killed? Let's keep this about "current" events, please.

Also, that case wouldn't be applicable to the topic even if it happened today because it's only circumstantial evidence, this thread doesn't consider circumstantial evidence for the death penalty.
 
Last edited:
  • #408
Char. Limit said:
If you must know, after seeing such a miscarriage of justice (for I would see it that way, if I were in that position), I'd try to see how many people I could take with me.

But I'm not entirely sane, I think. I especially wouldn't be entirely sane after sitting through that, and knowing what's ahead in my life.

I agree, if their going to convict me of something I might as well go do something worth the conviction.

Sentenced to death and no chance to get out of it? Kill a few guards and a postman.
 
  • #409
zomgwtf said:
I agree, if their going to convict me of something I might as well go do something worth the conviction.

Sentenced to death and no chance to get out of it? Kill a few guards and a postman.

Exactly. QFT.
 
  • #410
zomgwtf said:
I agree, if their going to convict me of something I might as well go do something worth the conviction.

Sentenced to death and no chance to get out of it? Kill a few guards and a postman.

Char. Limit said:
Exactly. QFT.
You would randomly kill innocent people?

This thead couldn't dig itself any lower.
 

Similar threads

Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K