Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[JaredJames]

To execute one is to say "you are not human" when, in fact, they are.

A human who has taken the life or ruined the life of another human. Should they be a part of society? No.

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.

Here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081125/text/81125w0033.htm under Prisons: Per Capita Costs section it shows to keep a male prisoner locked up for ten years is around £390,000, now you consider the cost of keeping someone in prison until they die, these days (assuming the crime is committed mid 20's) you could be looking at 40 - 60+ years. That money could be far better spent on healthcare or education.

EDIT: That cost above doesn't include any healthcare or education costs for those prisoners, that's additional (again shown in that article).

 

[JaredJames]

BobG, I was using the DNA issue to simply outline that people saying courts make mistakes when sentencing people in the past isn't a fair accusation.

If DNA wasn't available for the case at the time (lack of technology), you can't expect the courts to use it. They make an informed decision based on the evidence provided. Something I'd expect every person here can agree with.

If in the future DNA evidence is brought to light which clears the accused, it doesn't mean the courts decision in the past was wrong, just that there is now better evidence to make said decision on.

It's like doing an experiment and getting result A. You broadcast this and others try it and agree. Ten years later, someone finds a factor that wasn't included in the initial tests thanks to some new technology and builds it in, proving result A incorrect and B correct instead. A might have been the wrong answer for ten years, but if the technology wasn't around to let the performers of A know this, how would they have been able to factor it in? At the time, the decision to accept result A was correct.

Before I make a judgement, I'd like to see some numbers for the guilty:innocent ratio. At the moment, I don't see how it could be that high, but again, numbers first.

I agree, there needs to be a lot of eye witnesses to make a testimony accurate.

Me personally, if the evidence points to A as the answer, I go with A. I make an informed decision based on the evidence. If a person has all evidence against them saying they did it, you can't blame anyone for agreeing with it. We as a society make mistakes. The question is, how many guilty people are we willing to let go just on the off chance that one of them is innocent? Again, I need numbers to come up with a conclusion here.

 

[zomgwtf]

Did you leave out deterrence intentionally?

Deterence does not work. I'm pretty sure this has been studied to no end and while random reports come out claiming HEYYYY IT WORKS! Take them with a grain of salt. I mean reports and studies also come out saying that the world is 6000 years old and global warming isn't occurring.

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.

Why after a country abolishes the death penalty murder rates do not sky rocket? I've studied abolishment of the death penalty in Canada for law and how it relates to extradition of criminals.

Execuctions save lives? Really? That's a non-credible statement if I ever heard one. I mean I could probably take the exact same data and show that death penalty actually causes more deaths.

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.

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.

 

[zomgwtf]

The question is, how many guilty people are we willing to let go just on the off chance that one of them is innocent? Again, I need numbers to come up with a conclusion here.

Who exactly is being let go? Guilty criminals? Where? Where you live?

 

[nismaratwork]

Interesting words from somebody who publicly recognized that he would like to kill the would be assassin of his daughter.

Oh enough games DanP... do you have any clue how transparent this is? Yes, I answered your hypothetical about my hypothetical daughter, which, when taken out of context sounds like I think I should be allowed to kill the hypothetical killer. IN context, I was using that as an example describing why personal grief and anger shouldn't be a factor in these cases.

Your "view" is on record pages back... you don't give a ****, and just want people who commit crimes to get reciprocal treatment because to you that's "right". You stated you have no issue except forwarding your political agenda...we've all heard it... maybe now you should work on it being compelling.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Deterence does not work.

Should we give up on the criminal justice system entirely, then?

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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?

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[alt]

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 ?

 

[alt]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

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.

 

[alt]

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.

 

[Chi Meson]

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.

 

[alt]

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 ?

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

You would randomly kill innocent people?

This thead couldn't dig itself any lower.