The death penalty

[Sorratsin]

You hold quite a compassion for people, I see. There aren't merely a very few potentially innocent people whom have been executed, there are quite, a few potentially innocent people whom have been executed. Of the past 1000 executions in the United States, 121 of those individuals, are potentially innocent. All innocent people put to death by the death penalty have been killed unjustly, immorally, illegally, murdered. Any amount of innocent individuals killed by the death penalty is murder, regardless of your beliefs of the death penalty, a particularly heinous breed of murder. The death penalty, is not merely wrong for stealing innocent lives, the death penalty is wrong for all murders committed under it's name, regardless the individual put to death.[/spoiler]

I remember a line from the good book that probably went something like this. Its been awhile so bear with me: "If thou killest by the sword, thou must die by the sword."

Point being? You murder someone? You get executed for it.

Should women also have to burn pidgeons alive whenever they get their period?

[The Narexian Socialist States]

I don't give a damn if it isn't moral or right, I just belive in removing them for their danger to the public, and it costs money to keep them alive. I belive the death penalty should also be expanded upon, would save space and money. If the evidence is clear that they murdered them, after one month, throw em' off a cliff.
Kill them not for morality, but for the good of th state and the safety of the public.

Agreed. Lets not even make expensive "Humane" ways, just get them out of the pool.

I applaud you. Yes. Their seed shouldn't be planted and be allowed to contaminate the rest of society. We have enough problems out there as it is. Get them out of the gene pool. And... Yes it is cheaper to execute someone to anyone who thinks to the contrary.

[-St George]

olawd.

so an innocent person gets executed, which happens, don't pretend it doesn't, and how is it not anything other than state sanctioned murder?

Innocents , every one unit, may die and the guilty goes free.

Shit happens.

But we can drive the system to make sure that if it happens, it happens rarely.

Hell, maybe it can lead to the guilty party being caught due to the drive of investigation.

If we're killing people, then, we must be damn sure they are an enemy of the state, not our own men and women, damnit.

The system is broken.

[Stedicules]

Innocents , every one unit, may die and the guilty goes free.

Shit happens.

But we can drive the system to make sure that if it happens, it happens rarely.

Hell, maybe it can lead to the guilty party being caught due to the drive of investigation.

If we're killing people, then, we must be damn sure they are an enemy of the state, not our own men and women, damnit.

The system is broken.

No man. The system works man. You just gotta believe.

[Furious Grandmothers]

olawd.

so an innocent person gets executed, which happens, don't pretend it doesn't, and how is it not anything other than state sanctioned murder?

Innocents , every one unit, may die and the guilty goes free.

Shit happens.

But we can drive the system to make sure that if it happens, it happens rarely.

Hell, maybe it can lead to the guilty party being caught due to the drive of investigation.

If we're killing people, then, we must be damn sure they are an enemy of the state, not our own men and women, damnit.

Erm, the costly appeal system is what we have to make really sure that it happens as rarely as we can under current circumstances.

And still, there will still be innocents continuing to be sent to the death row.

[Furious Grandmothers]

You hold quite a compassion for people, I see. There aren't merely a very few potentially innocent people whom have been executed, there are quite, a few potentially innocent people whom have been executed. Of the past 1000 executions in the United States, 121 of those individuals, are potentially innocent. All innocent people put to death by the death penalty have been killed unjustly, immorally, illegally, murdered. Any amount of innocent individuals killed by the death penalty is murder, regardless of your beliefs of the death penalty, a particularly heinous breed of murder. The death penalty, is not merely wrong for stealing innocent lives, the death penalty is wrong for all murders committed under it's name, regardless the individual put to death.

I remember a line from the good book that probably went something like this. Its been awhile so bear with me: "If thou killest by the sword, thou must die by the sword."

Point being? You murder someone? You get executed for it.

That would work if the courts are really sure that the convicted party is truly guilty of murder. IRL, they aren't all the time. According to JJ, they can get it wrong 121 times out of a thousand?

[Alyakia]

But we can drive the system to make sure that if it happens, it happens rarely.

Hundreds of countries have found a way to drive the system to point where the number is a definite 0 while still managing to keep murderers away from society. (not doing it.)

[Greater Nilfgaard]

Nice to see you can't read

I said after a guilty verdict. The people killed wouldn't be innocent, but convicted criminals.

While were at it, here's another English 101 tip:
Murder means premeditated and unlawful killing, since execution isn't unlawful (even if you think it's morally wrong) it can't be considered murder.

Thus "execution = state sanctioned murder" is an oxymoron because it was the law that led to the execution.

olawd.

so an innocent person gets executed, which happens, don't pretend it doesn't, and how is it not anything other than state sanctioned murder?

whats interesting is how you care about the very few (who potentially) got wrongfully executed, yet don't seem to give a rats ass about the murderers who, having not been executed, get released and kill more people (or just kill fellow prisoners- if it's a life sentence).

You already got your little english lesson, so lets do a little math now, shall we?

There has never been a confirmed wrongful execution in recent memory in the US. But even assuming all of the "potential" cases turn out to be true, your still looking at a maximum of 1 % of executions (which can't be more than a few dozen over 3 decades).

Now, how many murders are there in the US annually ?

15,000...

when u consider that over 60% of prisoners released each year (~200,000) find themselves back in jail within 3 years, it's easy to see that many of the murders are caused by people who were released.

Only a small fraction of murders by released convicts is needed to far outweigh the deaths from any wrongful execution.

[Horsefish]

when u consider that over 60% of prisoners released each year (~200,000) find themselves back in jail within 3 years, it's easy to see that many of the murders are caused by people who were released.

Surely the more approriate statistic would be the number of murderers released who then go on to re-offend.
That number is going to be skewed by drug users, hookers and petty thieves.

Also, that shows that the US prison system is completely focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation.

[Alyakia]

If you are in a position to release them, you would most likely have not been in a position to execute them in the first place. You seem to be aware of this at the start, then forget it halfway through. You are setting up a false dichotomy between "killing them" and "releasing them" when in reality such a choice is much closer to "keeping them in death row fo 30 years and killing them" and "keeping them in a cell for 30 years until they die themselves".

If you want to make the point about murderers getting released, please provide staistics for murderers who were released who then went on to commit murder and not any other crime. Be careful to avoid including criminals imprisoned for other crimes who then go on to commit murder. Of course, keeping in mind that "murderers who are released killing people" is a matter of releasing/not releasing and not a matter of killing and thus completely unrelated to the death penalty as it possible to not release murderers and keep them isolated without killing them, I'm not sure what you were trying to do here.

[Keronians]

olawd.

so an innocent person gets executed, which happens, don't pretend it doesn't, and how is it not anything other than state sanctioned murder?

whats interesting is how you care about the very few (who potentially) got wrongfully executed, yet don't seem to give a rats ass about the murderers who, having not been executed, get released and kill more people (or just kill fellow prisoners- if it's a life sentence).

You already got your little english lesson, so lets do a little math now, shall we?

There has never been a confirmed wrongful execution in recent memory in the US. But even assuming all of the "potential" cases turn out to be true, your still looking at a maximum of 1 % of executions (which can't be more than a few dozen over 3 decades).

Now, how many murders are there in the US annually ?

15,000...

when u consider that over 60% of prisoners released each year (~200,000) find themselves back in jail within 3 years, it's easy to see that many of the murders are caused by people who were released.

Only a small fraction of murders by released convicts is needed to far outweigh the deaths from any wrongful execution.

And that's thanks to the appeals process.

Without the appeals process, all of these people would be dead.

[Delanshar]

If you are in a position to release them, you would most likely have not been in a position to execute them in the first place. You seem to be aware of this at the start, then forget it halfway through. You are setting up a false dichotomy between "killing them" and "releasing them" when in reality such a choice is much closer to "keeping them in death row fo 30 years and killing them" and "keeping them in a cell for 30 years until they die themselves".

If you want to make the point about murderers getting released, please provide staistics for murderers who were released who then went on to commit murder and not any other crime. Be careful to avoid including criminals imprisoned for other crimes who then go on to commit murder. Of course, keeping in mind that "murderers who are released killing people" is a matter of releasing/not releasing and not a matter of killing and thus completely unrelated to the death penalty as it possible to not release murderers and keep them isolated without killing them, I'm not sure what you were trying to do here.

You do realize that murders occur in prison as well, right?

Haven't you ever heard of those makeshift knives they put up their a** to hide from the guards?

So unless your going to put the most dangerous in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives (which is ridiculously expensive and could amount to torture) you should spare everyone some money and lives and just kill them.

[Keronians]

If you are in a position to release them, you would most likely have not been in a position to execute them in the first place. You seem to be aware of this at the start, then forget it halfway through. You are setting up a false dichotomy between "killing them" and "releasing them" when in reality such a choice is much closer to "keeping them in death row fo 30 years and killing them" and "keeping them in a cell for 30 years until they die themselves".

If you want to make the point about murderers getting released, please provide staistics for murderers who were released who then went on to commit murder and not any other crime. Be careful to avoid including criminals imprisoned for other crimes who then go on to commit murder. Of course, keeping in mind that "murderers who are released killing people" is a matter of releasing/not releasing and not a matter of killing and thus completely unrelated to the death penalty as it possible to not release murderers and keep them isolated without killing them, I'm not sure what you were trying to do here.

You do realize that murders occur in prison as well, right?

Haven't you ever heard of those makeshift knives they put up their a** to hide from the guards?

So unless your going to put the most dangerous in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives (which is ridiculously expensive and could amount to torture) you should spare everyone some money and lives and just kill them.

Solitary confinement is torture?

Pray tell, what is your definition of torture?

And, as has been pointed out 13985738295728975298752 times in this thread, the death penalty IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

[JJ Place]

You hold quite a compassion for people, I see. There aren't merely a very few potentially innocent people whom have been executed, there are quite, a few potentially innocent people whom have been executed. Of the past 1000 executions in the United States, 121 of those individuals, are potentially innocent. All innocent people put to death by the death penalty have been killed unjustly, immorally, illegally, murdered. Any amount of innocent individuals killed by the death penalty is murder, regardless of your beliefs of the death penalty, a particularly heinous breed of murder. The death penalty, is not merely wrong for stealing innocent lives, the death penalty is wrong for all murders committed under it's name, regardless the individual put to death.[/spoiler]

I remember a line from the good book that probably went something like this. Its been awhile so bear with me: "If thou killest by the sword, thou must die by the sword."

Point being? You murder someone? You get executed for it.

"An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind."

You would agree that the crime of murder renders an individual worthy of the death penalty, correct?

[Alyakia]

If you are in a position to release them, you would most likely have not been in a position to execute them in the first place. You seem to be aware of this at the start, then forget it halfway through. You are setting up a false dichotomy between "killing them" and "releasing them" when in reality such a choice is much closer to "keeping them in death row fo 30 years and killing them" and "keeping them in a cell for 30 years until they die themselves".

If you want to make the point about murderers getting released, please provide staistics for murderers who were released who then went on to commit murder and not any other crime. Be careful to avoid including criminals imprisoned for other crimes who then go on to commit murder. Of course, keeping in mind that "murderers who are released killing people" is a matter of releasing/not releasing and not a matter of killing and thus completely unrelated to the death penalty as it possible to not release murderers and keep them isolated without killing them, I'm not sure what you were trying to do here.

You do realize that murders occur in prison as well, right?

Haven't you ever heard of those makeshift knives they put up their a** to hide from the guards?

So unless your going to put the most dangerous in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives (which is ridiculously expensive and could amount to torture) you should spare everyone some money and lives and just kill them.

Aren't inmates in death row effectively already in "Special Confinment"/their own cells anyway?

Do I need to post all the crap about how killing them doesn't save money again? Even if you do stick them in solidarity or their own cells forever, the trials, which account for 70% of the added cost of the death penalty, would be gone.

[Alyakia]

You do realize that murders occur in prison as well, right?

Haven't you ever heard of those makeshift knives they put up their a** to hide from the guards?

So unless your going to put the most dangerous in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives (which is ridiculously expensive and could amount to torture) you should spare everyone some money and lives and just kill them.

Solitary confinement is torture?

Pray tell, what is your definition of torture?

And, as has been pointed out 13985738295728975298752 times in this thread, the death penalty IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

To be fair, sticking someone in solitary for decades is close to torture and will without a doubt fuck people up. There was a story about a guy who was in there for 23 years a while ago. But since there were people defending water boarding before this is probably an impossible point.

[Keronians]

Solitary confinement is torture?

Pray tell, what is your definition of torture?

And, as has been pointed out 13985738295728975298752 times in this thread, the death penalty IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

To be fair, sticking someone in solitary for decades is close to torture and will without a doubt fuck people up. There was a story about a guy who was in there for 23 years a while ago. But since there were people defending water boarding before this is probably an impossible point.

It may fuck them up, yes.

Though it's better than killing them, and making them live (in solitary confinement) knowing they're going to be killed.

[The Parkus Empire]

It may fuck them up, yes.

Though it's better than killing them, and making them live (in solitary confinement) knowing they're going to be killed.

Barely. The only possible reason I would ever prefer life in solitary to death, is chance of escape. Barring that, give me a fucking firing squad.

[Delanshar]

You do realize that murders occur in prison as well, right?

Haven't you ever heard of those makeshift knives they put up their a** to hide from the guards?

So unless your going to put the most dangerous in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives (which is ridiculously expensive and could amount to torture) you should spare everyone some money and lives and just kill them.

Solitary confinement is torture?

Pray tell, what is your definition of torture?

And, as has been pointed out 13985738295728975298752 times in this thread, the death penalty IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

well... as I have mentioned 5.5 x 10^16 times in this thread, it wouldn't be so damn expensive if u used a 40 cent bullet and limited appeals to one each.

[JJ Place]

So *shrug* is your reaction to the potential murder of innocent people by the state?

'K.

I have faith in the modern technology. DNA makes a big difference compared to the older cases.

Your faith might wane a bit, when you consider that a vast majority of cases are settled or the verdict handed down without substantial forensic evidence. With all of it's modern advancements, safeguards, and promotion towards justice, much of the legal system remains a battle-ground , fought between the Defense and the Prosecution, presided over by the Judge, snippets of the snippets of the provided trial information handed by the court system to the media, with fewer pieces of truth handed to civilians, all information heavily biased towards the Prosecution. The legal system is often more of game played between multiple sides, the main two sides being a side bent on placing an individual or party with guilt and punishment, and the second defending parties accused in the Judicial System. The evidence, often, is often merely one aspect of the trial, often misrepresented, and, epidemically, lied of to the court system. The Prosecution often withholds evidence from the case, lying about the evidence presented, and placing false accusations on the defendant and the defendants. Forensic evidence is far more reliable in cases than any alternative method of rendering a correct verdict, but even forensics, E.G. DNA, have not been perfected to an optimal state. DNA does make a major difference, compared to older cases, but our modern level of technology is not perfect, and not adequate in declaring that an innocent individual will never be found guilty by the modern Judicial System.

[Keronians]

Solitary confinement is torture?

Pray tell, what is your definition of torture?

And, as has been pointed out 13985738295728975298752 times in this thread, the death penalty IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

well... as I have mentioned 5.5 x 10^16 times in this thread, it wouldn't be so damn expensive if u used a 40 cent bullet and limited appeals to one each.

I'm sure all these people would have rather died for a crime they never did.

[Delanshar]

To be fair, sticking someone in solitary for decades is close to torture and will without a doubt fuck people up. There was a story about a guy who was in there for 23 years a while ago. But since there were people defending water boarding before this is probably an impossible point.

It may fuck them up, yes.

Though it's better than killing them, and making them live (in solitary confinement) knowing they're going to be killed.

Spending decades in a tiny cell with no outside contact might as well be death, except much more expensive.

My point: why not just end it with a fucking bullet and spare everyone the energy.

[Keronians]

It may fuck them up, yes.

Though it's better than killing them, and making them live (in solitary confinement) knowing they're going to be killed.

Spending decades in a tiny cell with no outside contact might as well be death, except much more expensive.

My point: why not just end it with a fucking bullet and spare everyone the energy.

Meh, I'm not really in support for long periods of solitary confinement anyway.

[Alyakia]

Solitary confinement is torture?

Pray tell, what is your definition of torture?

And, as has been pointed out 13985738295728975298752 times in this thread, the death penalty IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

well... as I have mentioned 5.5 x 10^16 times in this thread, it wouldn't be so damn expensive if u used a 40 cent bullet and limited appeals to one each.

Which would cause hundreds of people who would later be found innocent to be killed.

How many appeals?

[Alyakia]

"About 70% of the added cost of a death notice case occurs during the trial phase. These additional costs are due to a longer pre-trial period, a longer and more intensive voir dire process, longer trials, more time spent by more attorneys preparing cases, and an expensive penalty phase trial that does not occur at all in non-death penalty cases. In addition, death notice casesare more likely to incur costs during the appellate phase even if there is no death sentence."

Could you explain how you intend to negate all of these factors?