The Death Penalty

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I think capital punishment is a necessary sin.

WIthout it, prisons will be become even more crowded, and tax payers are already spending enough money on people that can't follow laws. In fact, they should make it easier for one to get capital punishment. If I were being convicted of murder, I'd rather get lethal injection instead of being prison raped.

Yet the largest company running prisons is demanding a 90% occupancy rate.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewN ... ncy_120216

Private Prison Company to Demand 90% Occupancy
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Private Prison Company to Demand 90% Occupancy
(graphic: criminalswanted.org)
The nation’s largest private prison company is offering cash-strapped state governments to buy up their penitentiaries and manage convicted criminals at a cost-savings. But there’s a catch…the states must guarantee that are there are enough prisoners to ensure that the venture is profitable to the company.

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has reached out to 48 states as part of a $250 million plan to own existing prisons and manage their operations. But in return CCA wants a 20-year contract and assurances that the state will keep the prisons at least 90% full.

In the past CCA has operated its own prisons and contracted with states to house inmates. But until now the company never offered to essentially take over public corrections systems.

Ohio already has sold one of its largest prisons to CCA. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal wanted last year to sell three of his state’s prisons to the company, but the legislature refused to go along.

Critics of the plan warn that if states commit to CCA’s deal, they could find themselves with little bargaining power down the road once it comes time to negotiate new contracts. And, if the crime rate continues dropping, will police, prosecutors and judges feel compelled to supply human “product” for the prisons anyway?

[Pancakes Wrath]

This is slightly daft. I mean, in the USA (for an example), they make the point in their courts that murder is VERY wrong, which it is, but then they get across that point by killing people in front of a audiance. Go figure NS...

It's not that much of an audience, generally, just the family of the criminal, possibly the family of the victim, and a few journalists. It's not like a hanging in the town square or a beheading on a scaffold in front of the courthouse. Executions aren't even televised nor are images released (at least to my knowledge, but it's not like I go looking for all of that).

But yeah, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The death of the prisoner is still broadcast on national news.

Of course, if the murder gains enough attention, you'll see it re-created on various TV shows and shitty made-for-TV movies. Which does nothing to stop crime and actually sort of glorifies it. Come on, does anyone actually feel sympathy for the victim or his/her family in those kinds of shows? No, they're almost irrelevant compared to the screen time it takes for the killer to be caught and tried. Because that's just so much more interesting.

[Safed]

No, the long sentences and downright stupid laws like the three strike rule are the problem. 20 years for stealing biscuits as a 3rd offence. Really?

Obviously long sentences aren't a deterrent or people would stop after 2 offences no?

Strangely enough, theft and robbery are the crimes with the highest rates of recidivism. The three strike rule sounds cool to uber-punitive Americans, but in reality it's a load of shit. An armed robber deserves the original 10 years, but stealing a pack of biscuits some years after his release does not warrant 25 to life.

The US does little to reduce recidivism, which would cut down on crime much more than stupidly long sentences would. And that, by the way, would also ease the overcrowding of US prisons. And, you know, not glorifying crime in the media and making it socially acceptable would be even more effective, but of course that's liberal hippie socialism.

I agree, one of the best articles I have read on it was this one from '98

Of particular interest is:

On April 15, 1994, Larry Fisher, 35, was convicted of his third strike in Snohomish county superior court in Washington. He is in prison and will stay there for the rest of his life. Fisher was convicted of putting his finger in his pocket, pretending it was a gun, and robbing a sandwich shop of $151 dollars. An hour later police arrested him at a bar a block away while he was drinking a beer. Fisher's two prior strikes involved stealing $360 from his grandfather in 1986 and robbing a pizza parlor of $100. All told the take from Fisher's criminal career totals $611 dollars; he has never physically harmed anyone.

and

When the laws make no difference in punishment between killing five people, having a gun, having 650 grams of an illegal drug or stealing $151 dollars, there is something wrong. Washington and California police have reported that since the "Three Strikes" laws went into effect suspects have become more violent in resisting arrest. A suspect, knowing that if convicted of petty theft will spend his life in prison has, quite literally, nothing to lose if he has to kill a few people to avoid arrest. Seattle Police Sgt. Eric Bardt was quoted as saying: "It now looks like some of these three strikes cases might try to get away or shoot their way out. Believe me, that's not lost on us. We're thinking about it." The result of this will likely be the continued broadening of the death penalty.

[Isointania]

This is slightly daft. I mean, in the USA (for an example), they make the point in their courts that murder is VERY wrong, which it is, but then they get across that point by killing people in front of a audiance. Go figure NS...

It's not that much of an audience, generally, just the family of the criminal, possibly the family of the victim, and a few journalists. It's not like a hanging in the town square or a beheading on a scaffold in front of the courthouse. Executions aren't even televised nor are images released (at least to my knowledge, but it's not like I go looking for all of that).

But yeah, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The death of the prisoner is still broadcast on national news.

Of course, if the murder gains enough attention, you'll see it re-created on various TV shows and shitty made-for-TV movies. Which does nothing to stop crime and actually sort of glorifies it. Come on, does anyone actually feel sympathy for the victim or his/her family in those kinds of shows? No, they're almost irrelevant compared to the screen time it takes for the killer to be caught and tried. Because that's just so much more interesting.

I see your point, but the executed's family didn't commit the crime. It can't be very pleasent sitting in your jail cell thinking up some obsure last meal request that'll stump the chef, but once the poisions done it's dirty work, that's it, you're dead. The ones who really suffer are the family, and they didn't commit the crime.

[Pope Joan]

Police, prosecutors, judges and juries combine to convict hundreds upon hundreds of innocent defendants every year.

Check out the Innocence Project in Illinois. Its works turned up so many death sentences that had to later be overturned because of DNA evidence that the governor refused to hold any more executions.

So, our system of "justice" displays precious little of it.

Many other states and localities now have their own innocence projects, which you can search.

The state of Florida was so afraid people on death row might be set free thanks to this trend that it forbade the use of DNA evidence to exonerate them after conviction. (It was allowed, but only for a drastically shortened time after conviction. Human lives at stake, but mostly Black or Hispanic so the political gain was obvious)

Sometimes we see a defendant, poor, friendless, uneducated, who will even confess to a murder (after questioning), only to have the conviction overturned because later DNA evidence proved he could not have done the crime.

[Czinuzkkia]

i dont agree with the death sentence, excluding extreme cases.

the us makes it obvious that killing a person is very wrong, yet they contradict that by themselves killing a person? hmmm...

a fire can't be put out with fire.

[New Isotopia]

I disagree with the Death Penalty, excluding in extreme cirrumstance's (I.E. Multple Accounts of murder and child rape.)

Even then it should only used if the prosecuters are 100% sure that the accused carryed out the crime.

Because like what Gandi once said, "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

[Kemaliste]

I support death penalty for treason, child abusion, murder of children and women.

[Zanzibarnia]

Against it, for any number of the reasons already stated.

The fact that people on death row are on suicide watch speaks volumes to the death penalty being little more than a thinly veiled excuse for a deranged need for vengeance.

"Hi there, Mister Criminal! Listen, we, uh, we were all having a little chat, and everyone kind of agrees -- well, not everyone, but you know what I mean -- that we'd all prefer it if you weren't alive anymore. And we figure the best way to do so would be to strap you to a table and inject you full of poison. What's that? Just let you kill yourself? Haha, you are hilarious! No, don't be silly now. We're not monsters, you know."

[Not a pipe]

Option #2. However the other circumstance should be if the person being imprisoned with hard work or whatever it is, prefers death penalty. And they can prefer suicide or being eaten (by people or animals) or scientific experiment instead of lethal injection and so on. However, you must be careful always; sometimes even a murder may not be sufficient for death penalty. But ensure no too much population! The human population is already going to be too much.

[Silent Majority]

I support death penalty for treason, child abusion, murder of children and women.

But not men? How is murdering a woman any different than murdering a man?

[Zanzar]

We need to rehabilitate criminals more than deter them. Of course some won't or cannot be rehabilitated, so for them normal punishment including the death penalty should stand.

[No Water No Moon]

i dont agree with the death sentence, excluding extreme cases.

the us makes it obvious that killing a person is very wrong, yet they contradict that by themselves killing a person? hmmm...

a fire can't be put out with fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

[Leepaidamba]

I'm split between the last three options on the poll, because they are all part of my viewpoint. Damn, why can't I just split my vote?

[Blakk Metal]

It should be abolished, as it's a waste of money. A paradox, I know, but considering the legal costs of the decades of appeals made before the execution, as well as the high costs of maintaining execution equipment, it is cheaper just to imprison them for life.

Then change the method. Nitrogen isn't that expensive y'know...

The death penalty should not be leagal. The law should not be about revenge.


"every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical." - Montesquieu/Beccaria

When constructing the legal framework for a society the collective should distance themselves from emotional bias and think instead of the overall effect.

Societys such as the United States which have notriously harsh sentences appear to result in a greater crime rate. More empathetc societies such as Ireland appear to have a reduced crime rate.

Have you ever thought that countries with high crime rates would be more likely to increase their punishments?

Crimes Involving sex, children and/or death should be punished by the death penalty here in australia.

So sexual harassment and involuntary manslaughter should be punished by death?

Just because it has been shown to slip up does not mean it should be abolished for just that. It's simple; if someone commits a crime that is incredibly unethical or immoral as judged by the society of the offending individual that is considered worthy of death, and there is sufficient evidence to show that said individual did commit the crime, kill them. Voila. Done. Punishment served. Don't keep them locked away and waste tax money feeding them. Kill them.

You do realise the US spends more on each execution than on each prisoner serving life?

Lethal Injection: Painful, unpleasant to watch, and expensive

If they are proven guilty, then yeah just gut them, and throw them in a pile

Publicized execution sounds good too

We are living in a huggie world that gives cold blood serial killers soft sentence in hope that they will somehow turn normal, the laws we have is a revolving door, criminals come in bad, walk out with zero repentance. We need some gulags, and more lethal injection to save taxpayer money.

If you think death penalty is for uncivilised countries, think from victim perspective, and you will think a country without death penalty is the uncivilised and senseless one.

GO BACK TO YOUR GRAVE, STALIN!

if the convicts are made to work to death I am ok with it. Otherwise it's just bad

That's worse.

As a measure of incapacitation, the death penalty is undeniably effective. Ending the life of a serial murderer will most definetly prevent them from killing again. However, as a method of incapacitation it's expensive, and it has to be given the layers of fail-safes and the legal system in this nation. A more compelling and effective system might be the construction of more "Administrative Maximum" facilities like the one on Florence, Colorado to house the worst of the worst offenders. In the long run it would be less costly.

However, the argument against the death penalty is compelling because it is an unjust means of punishment. However it is not unjust for the convicted, it is unjust for society, especially the survivors of murder and terrorism. The ancient Babylonians knew this when writing the Code of the Hammurabi, that is why their methods of punishment revolved around Lex Talsonis (eye for an eye).

To apply this concept to modern capitol punishment let's take Denis Rader aka. "The BTK Killer" as an example.

Denis Rader confessed to the murder of at least 10 people in Sedgewick County, Kansas. His modus operandi included blindfolding and restricting his victims before asphyxiating them either with a plastic bad, by hanging, with some sort of garotte, or even his own hands.
Now the code of the Hammurabi would dictate that if Rader (who is in prison today after confessing) were to be executed, it would have to be done so in the same fashion in order to satisfy the need for natural justice. That would mean he would be restrained and asphyxiated via strangulation in some fashion.

While I'm sure a few posters on here would giggle with glee at the thought of executing murderers and terrorists in the same exact fashion that they themselves took the lives of others, I don't. To do that would be to start a backslide with an endpoint where we're once again cutting the hands off of shoplifters automatically without considering motive or circumstance.

Ergo, the death penalty is unjust for victims and survivors, hence it is unjust entirely. To make it just would set all sorts of bad precedent and begin a devolution of modern law.

Not to mention if mass murder is involved.

[Wikkiwallana]

Abolish it. It's outdated, barbaric, and useless.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

While I do acknowledge and feel disappointment over the fact that there are indeed cases in which innocent people are wrongly tried, convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit, I'm well and truly not convinced at all about the statement that "capital punishment doesn't deter crime". Well, if it doesn't deter crime, then what can it possibly do?

I do think that homocidal madmen like Anders Breivik and Nidal Hasan obviously wouldn't be deterred by something like the death penalty because, figuratively speaking, they're "beyond the point of no return" in terms of their mental health. But really? How can people say that capital punishment doesn't deter crime, full stop? What if there existed a hypothetical situation where even the most minor of crimes such as stealing a piece of cake or calling someone an "asshole" in the streets was punishable by the death penalty? Will the death penalty not deter crime in that case?

In any case, my vote goes to #2. I live in Australia where they don't have the death penalty, so I'm not as well versed in the issue as you guys in the United States. According to http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 , California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since its reinstatement in 1978 - $308 million per each of the 13 executions which took place), and spends $184 million on it per year. However, much of it is clogged up in judiciary costs.

Now, I can't help but wonder..."Why?" Breivik is obviously guilty, with so many eyewitnesses who have given direct accounts of his actions in court. Nidal Hasan has had eyewitnesses speak against him in court. There's no question at all that both men are guilty, so why not just give them a single trial and to the gallows with them? Why is there a need to build up such unnecessary costs? Why must we continue to refrain from what is seen by many as a just punishment for a capital offence for which there is an utterly overwhelming amount of evidence? Are such cases so similar to cases for which false findings or a lack of adequate evidence lead to the execution of an innocent person, that we must remain stagnate and grant murderers such as Breivik and Hasan amnesty through life sentences?

By the way, Breivik's sentence won't even be a life sentence. It'll be 21 years, in accordance to Norwegian law, according to numerous articles published in April.
Twenty. One. Years. For killing 77 people. Go figure.

He shouldn't have gotten that much.

It's not his fault he was never taught right from wrong in a manner that was effective for him. He simply didn't know any better. He needs brotherly love and compassion to help him learn and get past this unfortunate episode in his life, not sociopathic scorn and hatred of the sort you're proposing.

[Blakk Metal]

What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

While I do acknowledge and feel disappointment over the fact that there are indeed cases in which innocent people are wrongly tried, convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit, I'm well and truly not convinced at all about the statement that "capital punishment doesn't deter crime". Well, if it doesn't deter crime, then what can it possibly do?

I do think that homocidal madmen like Anders Breivik and Nidal Hasan obviously wouldn't be deterred by something like the death penalty because, figuratively speaking, they're "beyond the point of no return" in terms of their mental health. But really? How can people say that capital punishment doesn't deter crime, full stop? What if there existed a hypothetical situation where even the most minor of crimes such as stealing a piece of cake or calling someone an "asshole" in the streets was punishable by the death penalty? Will the death penalty not deter crime in that case?

In any case, my vote goes to #2. I live in Australia where they don't have the death penalty, so I'm not as well versed in the issue as you guys in the United States. According to http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 , California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since its reinstatement in 1978 - $308 million per each of the 13 executions which took place), and spends $184 million on it per year. However, much of it is clogged up in judiciary costs.

Now, I can't help but wonder..."Why?" Breivik is obviously guilty, with so many eyewitnesses who have given direct accounts of his actions in court. Nidal Hasan has had eyewitnesses speak against him in court. There's no question at all that both men are guilty, so why not just give them a single trial and to the gallows with them? Why is there a need to build up such unnecessary costs? Why must we continue to refrain from what is seen by many as a just punishment for a capital offence for which there is an utterly overwhelming amount of evidence? Are such cases so similar to cases for which false findings or a lack of adequate evidence lead to the execution of an innocent person, that we must remain stagnate and grant murderers such as Breivik and Hasan amnesty through life sentences?

By the way, Breivik's sentence won't even be a life sentence. It'll be 21 years, in accordance to Norwegian law, according to numerous articles published in April.
Twenty. One. Years. For killing 77 people. Go figure.

He shouldn't have gotten that much.

It's not his fault he was never taught right from wrong in a manner that was effective for him. He simply didn't know any better. He needs brotherly love and compassion to help him learn and get past this unfortunate episode in his life, not sociopathic scorn and hatred of the sort you're proposing.

*tries not to be an asshole*


Hey, look at this guy! He's fuckin' serious!

[Seshephe]

I'm on the fence. In principle I'm against it, however, there are cases in which I think that it would be the best punishment. Anders Bering Brejvik is the obvious example. This should however, in that case, be a punishment reserved only for the absolutely worst crimes and only if it can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt (much higher standards than what is normally required for a conviction of say, murder or mass/serial murder).

[Danbershan]

I don't think capital punishment is ever OK.

People seem to miss the point of the justice system. It's not to punish, its to rehabilitate. Execution fundamentally changes the relationship between state and individual, whether or not the general populace realises.

[Safed]

He shouldn't have gotten that much.

It's not his fault he was never taught right from wrong in a manner that was effective for him. He simply didn't know any better. He needs brotherly love and compassion to help him learn and get past this unfortunate episode in his life, not sociopathic scorn and hatred of the sort you're proposing.

*tries not to be an asshole*


Hey, look at this guy! He's fuckin' serious!

He is? I just assumed Poe's law.

[Blakk Metal]

I don't think capital punishment is ever OK.

People seem to miss the point of the justice system. It's not to punish, its to rehabilitate. Execution fundamentally changes the relationship between state and individual, whether or not the general populace realises.

Proof?

*tries not to be an asshole*


Hey, look at this guy! He's fuckin' serious!

He is? I just assumed Poe's law.

He has said 'special' things like that before.

[Chestaan]

I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. It makes no sense as it costs more than life imprisonment, doesn't have any deterrence effect and of innocent people will inevitably be killed. And isn't the main point of prison supposed to be rehabilitation? How can we rehabilitate people when they're dead. I'm glad I live in a country where we don't use such barbaric punishments.

[Danbershan]

I don't think capital punishment is ever OK.

People seem to miss the point of the justice system. It's not to punish, its to rehabilitate. Execution fundamentally changes the relationship between state and individual, whether or not the general populace realises.

Proof?

This is my intepretation. I cannot provide proof. It just seems to be the most logical purpose to me. It isn't a statistic or fact which can be pulled up though, precisely because other people interpret the purpose of the justice system to be punishment. In my opinion, this is a misinterpretation.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I don't think capital punishment is ever OK.

People seem to miss the point of the justice system. It's not to punish, its to rehabilitate. Execution fundamentally changes the relationship between state and individual, whether or not the general populace realises.

Proof?

He is? I just assumed Poe's law.

He has said 'special' things like that before.

The more you mock me, the more I feel compassion and brotherly love towards you.