The death penalty

[Delanshar]

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.

As long as the trial is well thought out and organized, with extensive evidence, one appeal is all they would need.

[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.

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.

Appeals save lives, that's why, which are also why death is more expensive.

[Keronians]

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

As long as the trial is well thought out and organized, with extensive evidence, one appeal is all they would need.

The thing is that they're based on available evidence.

Additional evidence can arise later.

[Alyakia]

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

As long as the trial is well thought out and organized, with extensive evidence, one appeal is all they would need.

"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 these factors?

Just incase it gets missed.

[The Parkus Empire]

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

As long as the trial is well thought out and organized, with extensive evidence, one appeal is all they would need.

The success of appeals is largely based on findings that come up later.

[Alyakia]

As long as the trial is well thought out and organized, with extensive evidence, one appeal is all they would need.

The success of appeals is largely based on findings that come up later.

lol@posthumousexonerations

[Delanshar]

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.

Then you'll have dangerous men prowling the prisons, killing fellow inmates.
There would still be death, more of it in all likelihood, the only difference is the state didn't do it.

[Keronians]

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

Then you'll have dangerous men prowling the prisons, killing fellow inmates.
There would still be death, more of it in all likelihood, the only difference is the state didn't do it.

Which is why we have rehabilitation and guards in prisons.

Anyway, I fail to see why it's better to kill someone when it's more expensive, violates human rights, and serves absolutely no purpose other than satisfying people's bloodthirst and hard-on for revenge.

[Delanshar]

Then you'll have dangerous men prowling the prisons, killing fellow inmates.
There would still be death, more of it in all likelihood, the only difference is the state didn't do it.

Which is why we have rehabilitation and guards in prisons.

Anyway, I fail to see why it's better to kill someone when it's more expensive, violates human rights, and serves absolutely no purpose other than satisfying people's bloodthirst and hard-on for revenge.

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. Human nature evolved this way for a reason.

[Keronians]

Which is why we have rehabilitation and guards in prisons.

Anyway, I fail to see why it's better to kill someone when it's more expensive, violates human rights, and serves absolutely no purpose other than satisfying people's bloodthirst and hard-on for revenge.

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. We have emotions for a reason.

1) Which save innocent lives.

2) No, it really isn't. Right to life and right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment is very important. And I'm happy that as long as I live in the European Union, the death penalty will never be used.

3) It's good to end people's careers now? What's wrong? It leads to barbarianism.

[Keronians]

Which is why we have rehabilitation and guards in prisons.

Anyway, I fail to see why it's better to kill someone when it's more expensive, violates human rights, and serves absolutely no purpose other than satisfying people's bloodthirst and hard-on for revenge.

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. Human nature evolved this way for a reason.

Yeah, human nature evolved to realise that revenge killing is not rational.

[Alyakia]

Which is why we have rehabilitation and guards in prisons.

Anyway, I fail to see why it's better to kill someone when it's more expensive, violates human rights, and serves absolutely no purpose other than satisfying people's bloodthirst and hard-on for revenge.

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. Human nature evolved this way for a reason.

1. "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."

Still wondering how you're going to negate all of these things that aren't tied specifically to appeals.

2. If the state is triyng to kill the victims then you should probably tell us about that.

[-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?

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.

Ahuh. Yeah. Hmm. Interesting.

And irrelevant.

Do people get wrongfully sentenced to death? Yes they do.

Have some of those executed been innocent? Yes they have.

How, in the face of these simple, black and white facts, can you support the death penalty?

[Keronians]

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.

Ahuh. Yeah. Hmm. Interesting.

And irrelevant.

Do people get wrongfully sentenced to death? Yes they do.

Have some of those executed been innocent? Yes they have.

How, in the face of these simple, black and white facts, can you support the death penalty?

Because revenge killing and bloodthirst is cool.

We have to purify the genepool, you know!

[-St George]

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

As long as the trial is well thought out and organized, with extensive evidence, one appeal is all they would need.

Not really, considering evidence more than 10 years after the original trial has exonerated more than one wrongly convicted person.

[-St George]

Ahuh. Yeah. Hmm. Interesting.

And irrelevant.

Do people get wrongfully sentenced to death? Yes they do.

Have some of those executed been innocent? Yes they have.

How, in the face of these simple, black and white facts, can you support the death penalty?

Because revenge killing and bloodthirst is cool.

We have to purify the genepool, you know!

Can't we just choose a random ethnicity? It'd make it so much simpler, and cheaper.

The Wends perhaps.

[Keronians]

Because revenge killing and bloodthirst is cool.

We have to purify the genepool, you know!

Can't we just choose a random ethnicity? It'd make it so much simpler, and cheaper.

The Wends perhaps.

That's what I thought, but apparently, it's only cool if you throw a million dollars down the drain first.

[Buffett and Colbert]

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals.

Oh... oh my.

[The Undead Necris Scourge]

Im only for it in the more extreme cases, basically people that are just simply irredeemable. For example serial killers, serial rapists, tortures, serial killer cannibals, necrophile murderers, pedophiles (most pedophiles do not regret their actions and will do it again when the opportunity is right just look at how many go to prison and then immediately comeback into prison.), and other people who display that level of pure depravity should be executed so they won't burden the world with their evil any longer.

[The Parkus Empire]

pedophiles (most pedophiles do not regret their actions and will do it again when the opportunity is right just look at how many go to prison and then immediately comeback into prison.),

First off, wrong term.

Second, child predators have a relatively low recidivism rate in comparison to other kinds of criminals.

[Keronians]

pedophiles (most pedophiles do not regret their actions and will do it again when the opportunity is right just look at how many go to prison and then immediately comeback into prison.),

First off, wrong term.

Second, child predators have a relatively low recidivism rate in comparison to other kinds of criminals.

And pedophiles =/= criminals.

I have no problem with pedophiles, and personally don't care whether they like children or adults.

As long as they don't rape them, I don't care.

[The Undead Necris Scourge]

pedophiles (most pedophiles do not regret their actions and will do it again when the opportunity is right just look at how many go to prison and then immediately comeback into prison.),

First off, wrong term.

Second, child predators have a relatively low recidivism rate in comparison to other kinds of criminals.

Sorry about that I meant child rapists and more specifically the ones who have repeated raped a child or children. These people hardly ever change sort of like a dog who has tasted the flesh of humans they basically become monsters so to do the world a favor they should just be killed.

[The Undead Necris Scourge]

First off, wrong term.

Second, child predators have a relatively low recidivism rate in comparison to other kinds of criminals.

And pedophiles =/= criminals.

I have no problem with pedophiles, and personally don't care whether they like children or adults.

As long as they don't rape them, I don't care.

Pedophiles aren't criminals but if their lustful desires for children are ever realized it would definitely turn criminal and ruin an innocent child's life. Also pedophiles are often the consumers of child pornography and thats criminal by itself. Would you have a problem with a cannibal let's say they have never killed anyone and live a peaceful life but they have a burning lust for human flesh and blood. To me that sounds like someone who needs professional help before they actually start eating people in RL. Or what about a cannibal who actually eats human meat on occasion, lets say he hasn't killed anyone but he does partake in the eating of human flesh, would you consider that criminal.

[Threlizdun]

Despite how ideals of justice may lead us to the principle that the equitable punishment of one guilty of murder would be to take their life or the conclusion that using tax money to pay for the continued existence of one who commited such a monstrous act make sense, the faulty nature of most of the world's justice systems and the corruption that exists within them cause innocent individuals to be convicted at times. Personally, I view letting monstrous individuals live an acceptable sacrifice for making sure we never do harm to an innocent. I once actually believed that a more fair trade off would be for executions to only be allowed in situations where one actually witnessed the murder, though have come to conclude that while it makes sense, it is too difficult to apply it legally, with legality having been shown time and time again that acceptions are next to impossible to be made. Thus, I have come to be completely opposed to the death penalty's usage in society.

[Keronians]

And pedophiles =/= criminals.

I have no problem with pedophiles, and personally don't care whether they like children or adults.

As long as they don't rape them, I don't care.

Pedophiles aren't criminals but if their lustful desires for children are ever realized it would definitely turn criminal and ruin an innocent child's life. Also pedophiles are often the consumers of child pornography and thats criminal by itself. Would you have a problem with a cannibal let's say they have never killed anyone and live a peaceful life but they have a burning lust for human flesh and blood. To me that sounds like someone who needs professional help before they actually start eating people in RL. Or what about a cannibal who actually eats human meat on occasion, lets say he hasn't killed anyone but he does partake in the eating of human flesh, would you consider that criminal.

Define "child pornography".

Because I do have a problem with people using children to make pornography. However, I don't have a problem with artists depicting children having sex, and people watching that.