|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:30:29 GMT -5
I would, if he could be rehabilitated. If not, I'd rather he were simply isolated from the general population (life in prison) so that he couldn't hurt anyone else, rather than killed. Alright, then. Then let's make you solely responsible for paying for this man's food, clothing, medical expenses, utilities, and guard service, for the rest of his natural life. After all, you're forcing that expense on the rest of us due to the fact you don't want to just deal with an incurably violent criminal in the cheapest, timeliest way possible. The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. I'll repeat: Life imprisonment costs LESS money than the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 22:33:00 GMT -5
Only due to our fucked up legal system, and the fact that the criminal is able to continually appeal his sentence until it's carried out. If it weren't for all those idiotically wasted court costs, the price of the death penalty would be far cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 22:37:26 GMT -5
Erickson: Perhaps I'm being misunderstood, afterall. I'm speaking mainly about murderers. And none of those "crimes of passion" bitches, either.
Mainly. I am trying to speak in a somewhat general fashion, too, but it's my understanding that eye-for-an-eye debates are generally about criminals like this.
And Yaezakura is right about that. The actual cost of carrying out the penalty is less. Besides, the issue of how much it costs is really kind of irrelevent. It would cost the least to just tell the victim to buy a bullet. Cost is one of the last factors that should be considered in punitive action.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:39:17 GMT -5
Those "idiotically wasted court costs" are there to try to make extra sure we don't execute innocent people. And yet, we still DO execute people under highly questionable circumstances. What you are implying is that we remove some of the appeals and make it easier for innocent people to get killed.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 22:40:32 GMT -5
And Yaezakura is right about that. The actual cost of carrying out the penalty is less. Besides, the issue of how much it costs is really kind of irrelevent. It would cost the least to just tell the victim to buy a bullet. Cost is one of the last factors that should be considered in punitive action. I agree. The cost is largely irrelevant, but I wasn't the one who brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 9, 2009 22:43:17 GMT -5
Only due to our fucked up legal system, and the fact that the criminal is able to continually appeal his sentence until it's carried out. If it weren't for all those idiotically wasted court costs, the price of the death penalty would be far cheaper. We have the appeals process to ensure that we don't, you know, accidentally kill innocent people. I am not morally opposed to killing criminals that cannot rehabilitated. I oppose the death penalty for two reasons; uncertainty and cost. Uncertainty because in almost all cases, we can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt. How many people were executed before DNA evidence that have now been cleared of their crimes because of it? You can always make amends to someone who was wrongly imprisoned. You can never restore a life once you've taken it away. Cost because our (not always successful) attempts to make ourselves 100% certain of someone's guilt cost more than it does to simply lock them up.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 22:48:11 GMT -5
There are cases where guilt isn't clear. And the death penalty is always something that should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
However, with career criminals, like the ones who are on their 2nd, 3rd, 5th trip to prison, it is rather obvious at this point that they will never change, and continuing to spend even a penny on them is simply an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars.
However, the potential to kill an innocent is a common argument against the death penalty. However, why only then? Isn't is just as wrong to lock an innocent person up for life? Or even for a few years? Is the potential for an innocent man to fall through the cracks now and then reason enough not to punish criminals? It is, of course, terribly sad when it happens. But if we won't execute due to the risk of ending an innocent life, why should we use ANY punishment, when they all have that equal chance of targeting an innocent?
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 22:50:56 GMT -5
You can always make amends to someone who was wrongly imprisoned. You can never restore a life once you've taken it away. I'm pretty sure the same day we're able to give a man back 30 years of wrongly imprisoned life, we'll also be able to restore the dead.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 22:54:51 GMT -5
You can always make amends to someone who was wrongly imprisoned. You can never restore a life once you've taken it away. I'm pretty sure the same day we're able to give a man back 30 years of wrongly imprisoned life, we'll also be able to restore the dead. Yeah, this is what I find stupid about the "we can't give it back" argument. And the false accusations thing, too. I think DNA evidence has vastly reduced that. The thing about the appeal system is that it's way too easy to exploit. And I know you didn't bring it up, Erickson. It's just, if you actually felt it was irrelevent, I would have expected you to just say that.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 9, 2009 22:55:15 GMT -5
There are cases where guilt isn't clear. And the death penalty is always something that should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Agreed. That ignores the fact that the criminal justice system is irrationally focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I would support the death penalty if you could truly demonstrate that this person was beyond help. No. I repeat: you can always make amends to a man you have wronged. You cannot restore life to a man you have killed.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 9, 2009 22:57:30 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the same day we're able to give a man back 30 years of wrongly imprisoned life, we'll also be able to restore the dead. Yeah, this is what I find stupid about the "we can't give it back" argument. So you think that taking away thirty years is just as bad as taking away the entire thing irrevocably? Greatly reduced is not the same as eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 23:00:24 GMT -5
No. I repeat: you can always make amends to a man you have wronged. You cannot restore life to a man you have killed. How do you make amends for taking away a man's ability to watch his children grow up? How do you make amends for taking away his ability to attend his parents' funerals? How do you make amends for any other of the countless aspects of his life you have robbed him of? The simple answer is: You can't. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to make amends for robbing someone of a huge chunk of their life.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 23:01:17 GMT -5
There are cases where guilt isn't clear. And the death penalty is always something that should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. However, with career criminals, like the ones who are on their 2nd, 3rd, 5th trip to prison, it is rather obvious at this point that they will never change, and continuing to spend even a penny on them is simply an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars. So lock 'em up and throw away the key. Yes, it's possible for someone to go to prison for a crime they didn't commit, but the death penalty, by definition, is final. If an innocent person goes to prison and 5 years later it's discovered that they didn't really do it, you can let them out. If someone is put to death and 5 years later it's discovered that they're innocent, too fucking bad. Should we abolish all punishment? No. But we should rethink what the purpose of punishment is.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 23:01:17 GMT -5
Tiger, the thing is, YOU feel that amends can be made for wrongful imprisonment. The person who was actually imprisoned might not.
I don't think it's worse, I just think that "we can't give it back" is flimsy reasoning. You could argue against any sort of punishment AT ALL with it.
And we will never completely eliminate the potential for false accusations. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to mete out justice to those deemed guilty.
It's just a logical progression.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 9, 2009 23:01:54 GMT -5
No. I repeat: you can always make amends to a man you have wronged. You cannot restore life to a man you have killed. How do you make amends for taking away a man's ability to watch his children grow up? How do you make amends for taking away his ability to attend his parents' funerals? How do you make amends for any other of the countless aspects of his life you have robbed him of? The simple answer is: You can't. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to make amends for robbing someone of a huge chunk of their life. So, obviously, we're better off robbing them of the whole thing.
|
|