Death penalty

[Clavius]

Do you think it should be allowed for a state to execute prisoners if they are found to be guilty of "capital crimes"?

 

I personally agree with the death penalty in almost all cases in which it is used, sometimes people do things so bad that I feel no other punishment would be adequate for the nature of the crime.

 

I can see where opponents of the death penalty think that either you can't kill humans or that everyone can change and be corrected, but I feel that if you really look at what kinds of people are on death row you will see that most are literally a "menace to society" and should not be given a second chance to prove that they aren't.

[Synapsi]

I had to debate the death penalty last semester and in reading about the various ethical arguments, I came to believe life in prison without parole is just as fitting as the death penalty. They'll be forever taken out of society and it remains possible to rescind a wrongful conviction. Another big point for me was that any crime you could argue would've been scared off by the prospect of the death penalty would just as effectively be scared off by life in prison w/o parole. That and (I think I can say this since it came up in the last thread) the legal fees present in a capital punishment case are much greater than keeping someone in jail (without parole) for the rest of their life.

 

I guess I'm saying it's more of a practical argument for me, instead of a moral one.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Synapsi

[heb0]

The death penalty costs costs more than life in prison, both for the state and defendants. That's the main reason I'm against it, apart from the fact that, in a study of 350 or so cases, 7% of them involved executions of innocent people.

[O hai im KAMIL]

Life in prison without parole is (in my opinion) the worst punishment (excluding torture :() therefore I think that the death penalty is pretty much useless when you have a much cheaper, much worse punishment.

[Joyful Lemon]

How does keeping someone fed and kept healthy in prison for 50+ years cost less than just killing outright? Just wondering :(

[William Howard Taft]

How does keeping someone fed and kept healthy in prison for 50+ years cost less than just killing outright? Just wondering

Suffice it to say that court cases aren't free.

[Clavius]

I know it costs more, but if these people on death row probably aren't mentally stable or something they will cause a lot of problems in jails. I don't think that someone who murdered 4 people is going to be nice to guards and fellow inmates. Also I think cost of convicting and executing a prisoner currently should not matter anyways, life imprisonment should not be favored over the execution of a dangerous criminal simply due to dollars.

 

Life in prison might seem like a worse punishment, but if you really look at everything before the actual execution the person has to go through, you would probably see that everything before their execution and their execution together is the worst penalty. While in Life imprisonment without parole you have to live your life in custody forever, if you are sentenced to the death penalty you have to live your life in jail and then be executed.

 

I only support the death penalty in rather concrete cases with evidence, I would not support the killing of someone who either seems to be innocent or was convicted with somewhat flimsy evidence. In cases like these I would hope that the person is sentenced to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, and then have their sentence altered if binding evidence comes up that would convict this person of a crime that deserves the death penalty or someone else and cause the person in jail to be declared not guity.

 

if you are wondering what the varying costs are:

 

A 1992 estimate in Texas -- which has had more executions than any other state since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 -- showed that death row cases cost taxpayers $2.3 million per case, compared to $750,000 for life sentence cases.

 

McGinn cited a 2003 state audit that reported the median cost for death penalty cases in Kansas was $1.26 million through execution, while non-death penalty cases cost $740,000 through the end of a prisoner's incarceration.

 

 

from here : http://www.foxnews.c...-death-penalty/

 

So I would estimate that the cost of death penalty is probably a little over double life imprisonment from these two things.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Breeze

[O hai im KAMIL]

I know it costs more, but if these people on death row probably aren't mentally stable or something they will cause a lot of problems in jails. I don't think that someone who murdered 4 people is going to be nice to guards and fellow inmates.

 

Solitary Confinement/Asylum for the Criminally Insane?

[heb0]

How does keeping someone fed and kept healthy in prison for 50+ years cost less than just killing outright? Just wondering

Suffice it to say that court cases aren't free.

I think that's a lot of it. Appeals and stuff. Plus, people might spend quite a few years on death row, so there is a certain amount of "keeping them fed and healthy" that goes on. And then inmates often have to be put on suicide watch, so there's some cost to that. Because, ya know, we couldn't have them killing themselves before we got to do it.

[Clavius]

I know it costs more, but if these people on death row probably aren't mentally stable or something they will cause a lot of problems in jails. I don't think that someone who murdered 4 people is going to be nice to guards and fellow inmates.

 

Solitary Confinement/Asylum for the Criminally Insane?

asylum wouldn't make sense in most cases, it simply wouldn't be justified. In whatever cases where the person is deemed to be mentally unstable sure that is a valid option.

 

solitary confinement for the rest of your life would seem inhuman to most and would probably be met with more criticism than the death penalty. I see this as a lesser form of torture, living the rest of your days out in a closed cell.

[Eye]

I in absolutely no cases ever support the death penalty, and I feel anyone who does support the death penalty is morally misguided and delusioned about human life. I feel incredibly strong about this and feel no need to reconsider my opinion, as I feel it is the only correct one in this particular debate.

 

The only situation in which I support the idea of taking a human life is when it's the only option so as to save another(/others) life/(/lives), and if one is already detained and imprisoned, then he (or she) is no longer a risk to any other human life directly, assuming they can be looked after properly, which they CAN in modern prisons.

 

Edit: Whoops, forgot to explain why.

 

The entire reason why I feel that was is that I feel that the justice system has no place being a punitive system, but instead needs to be one of rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is not possible, I feel like people should be detained with the expectation that rehabilitation will always be an option in the future when they are more "able" to be rehabilitated.

 

I am of the opinion that every human life is a human life, and should be valued as much as the next. I feel like every person has something worth keeping alive, and if that something hasn't yet been discovered, or is hidden by shrouds of danger, than people should be detained up until (and only until!) the REASON they should be alive, the GOOD side of them is able to be brought out.

 

Prison should not be punishment, it should serve two purposes:

 

(Primarily) - Keeping the Public Safe

(Secondarily) - Rehabilitation

Edited January 29, 2012 by Eye

[Kwinten]

I'll be honest, I don't value human life a lot. But I don't support something as drastic as the death penalty either, especially if there's a chance, even the slightest chance, you're killing an innocent person.

[Eye]

You should value everyones life as much as you value your own.

 

Also, I've stated millions of times but I'll reiterate here because it's relevent: I'm not religious, I place my value in human life seperate from religion.

[reepicheep]

I in absolutely no cases ever support the death penalty, and I feel anyone who does support the death penalty is morally misguided and delusioned about human life. I feel incredibly strong about this and feel no need to reconsider my opinion, as I feel it is the only correct one in this particular debate.

 

The only situation in which I support the idea of taking a human life is when it's the only option so as to save another(/others) life/(/lives), and if one is already detained and imprisoned, then he (or she) is no longer a risk to any other human life directly, assuming they can be looked after properly, which they CAN in modern prisons.

 

Edit: Whoops, forgot to explain why.

 

The entire reason why I feel that was is that I feel that the justice system has no place being a punitive system, but instead needs to be one of rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is not possible, I feel like people should be detained with the expectation that rehabilitation will always be an option in the future when they are more "able" to be rehabilitated.

 

I am of the opinion that every human life is a human life, and should be valued as much as the next. I feel like every person has something worth keeping alive, and if that something hasn't yet been discovered, or is hidden by shrouds of danger, than people should be detained up until (and only until!) the REASON they should be alive, the GOOD side of them is able to be brought out.

 

Prison should not be punishment, it should serve two purposes:

 

(Primarily) - Keeping the Public Safe

(Secondarily) - Rehabilitation

Well said.

 

And it has to come eventually, but it goes against my religion as well. (inb4atheistsattack)

Edited January 29, 2012 by reepicheep

[heb0]

I agree that solitary confinement is arguably as inhuman a punishment as death, if not more. Even spending days in solitary confinement has mental effects. Solid years would be out of the question. I don't think it would be necessary to keep even the most violent offenders in solitary confinement as it is generally defined.

 

The costs of keeping someone in solitary for 30+ years are probably significantly higher than for the general prison population, too, though iirc they're less than for someone on death row.

[Clavius]

After thinking about this for a little I came up with a good solution that would satisfy both the need for protection and not killing anyone..

 

How about having a national prison that is reserved for people who would be given the death penalty or life sentences, which would not hold anyone except for these people. The guard staff would be increased and all of them would have life sentences or something. If for some reason kill each other in prison, it should not be seen as a flaw to this as some would have been executed and the total number alive would still be higher. Guards would be trained exclusively to deal with these prisoners and safety measures would be heightened from high security as conspiring against guards might be a threat.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Breeze

[Synapsi]

After thinking about this for a little I came up with a good solution that would satisfy both the need for protection and not killing anyone..

 

How about having a national prison that is reserved for people who would be given the death penalty or life sentences, which would not hold anyone except for these people. The guard staff would be increased and all of them would have life sentences or something. If for some reason kill each other in prison, it should not be seen as a flaw to this as some would have been executed and the total number alive would still be higher. Guards would be trained exclusively to deal with these prisoners and safety measures would be heightened from high security as conspiring against guards might be a threat.

You're describing a maximum security prison with a tolerance for the murder of inmates.

[Clavius]

After thinking about this for a little I came up with a good solution that would satisfy both the need for protection and not killing anyone..

 

How about having a national prison that is reserved for people who would be given the death penalty or life sentences, which would not hold anyone except for these people. The guard staff would be increased and all of them would have life sentences or something. If for some reason kill each other in prison, it should not be seen as a flaw to this as some would have been executed and the total number alive would still be higher. Guards would be trained exclusively to deal with these prisoners and safety measures would be heightened from high security as conspiring against guards might be a threat.

You're describing a maximum security prison with a tolerance for the murder of inmates.

hard to explain, Im not saying tolerance, I am saying that as prison violence happens and this is a point in the argument for the death penalty, you can't use this argument if any of these people who would have been sentenced to death get injured/killed by other inmates as they would have been killed anyways by the state.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Breeze

[O hai im KAMIL]

You should value everyones life as much as you value your own.

 

Also, I've stated millions of times but I'll reiterate here because it's relevent: I'm not religious, I place my value in human life seperate from religion.

 

I value my life over others. Without my life, I cease to exist. Without someone elses life, I still exist.

 

Call me selfish or whatever, but that's the way I feel.

[Eye]

You should value everyones life as much as you value your own.

 

Also, I've stated millions of times but I'll reiterate here because it's relevent: I'm not religious, I place my value in human life seperate from religion.

 

I value my life over others. Without my life, I cease to exist. Without someone elses life, I still exist.

 

Call me selfish or whatever, but that's the way I feel.

 

Oh I'm aware that everyone will, in their most primal form, disagree with me, and truthfully so would I in a situation whereby I had to choose between myself and another.

 

However it's an ideal to work towards, where you value other peoples' lives as much as you value your own. In a situation where your own life isn't in danger, it allows you to do things that are ultimately humane. Like banning the death penalty.

[Emo Nemo]

You should value everyones life as much as you value your own.

 

Also, I've stated millions of times but I'll reiterate here because it's relevent: I'm not religious, I place my value in human life seperate from religion.

 

I value my life over others. Without my life, I cease to exist. Without someone elses life, I still exist.

 

Call me selfish or whatever, but that's the way I feel.

 

Oh I'm aware that everyone will, in their most primal form, disagree with me, and truthfully so would I in a situation whereby I had to choose between myself and another.

 

However it's an ideal to work towards, where you value other peoples' lives as much as you value your own. In a situation where your own life isn't in danger, it allows you to do things that are ultimately humane. Like banning the death penalty.

 

What are your views on those who kill dozens of people? Should these people be able to eventually go free under your beliefs? I'm not forming an opinion just yet just prodding your beliefs a little.

[Eye]

You should value everyones life as much as you value your own.

 

Also, I've stated millions of times but I'll reiterate here because it's relevent: I'm not religious, I place my value in human life seperate from religion.

 

I value my life over others. Without my life, I cease to exist. Without someone elses life, I still exist.

 

Call me selfish or whatever, but that's the way I feel.

 

Oh I'm aware that everyone will, in their most primal form, disagree with me, and truthfully so would I in a situation whereby I had to choose between myself and another.

 

However it's an ideal to work towards, where you value other peoples' lives as much as you value your own. In a situation where your own life isn't in danger, it allows you to do things that are ultimately humane. Like banning the death penalty.

 

What are your views on those who kill dozens of people? Should these people be able to eventually go free under your beliefs? I'm not forming an opinion just yet just prodding your beliefs a little.

 

Yes, but let me explain a little before you jump to conclusions:

 

As I said I think ultimately everyone has something worth living for, you see it all the time, you see people genuinely reformed and people genuinely rehabilitated into new lives. HOWEVER, in your hypothetical situation the concern is, of course, public safety.

 

In these particular cases (and EVERYTHING has to be done on a case by case basis, but when it's a persons entire life, that is not too expensive or too wasteful), you really need professionals involved to determine whether or not someone is suitable for release.

 

No sane human kills another human without a "reason", be it a good one (self defense, for example), or a bad one (rage, revenge.) So the first step is determining if they're sane. If they are not sane (as deemed by a number of professionals), then releasing them would not be possible.

 

You really need a million details that I can't know just by the mere fact that the hypothetical person you're suggesting is, ultimately, a serial murderer.

 

I would say the VAST majority of people who go onto kill dozens of people would not be mentally stable, and not able to be released at any point, however the things is you can't just kill people who are mentally unstable, as they deserve an equal chance at life. There's always outliers, there's always that one person of many who turns out to be able to have a life they deserve to have, and when you start killing murderers, you start killing those people as well.

 

Another valid point is the concept of change. People are ever changing and people always deserve to have their sanity, and their public safety re-evaluated. Things professionals can do, and the masses can not.

 

(As a little subscript, it is very late and I'm mildly concerned my post may not have been overly coherent, so if there's anything you need re-explaining, let me know and I'll do it tomorrow when I'm a little more awake.)

[O hai im KAMIL]

You should value everyones life as much as you value your own.

 

Also, I've stated millions of times but I'll reiterate here because it's relevent: I'm not religious, I place my value in human life seperate from religion.

 

I value my life over others. Without my life, I cease to exist. Without someone elses life, I still exist.

 

Call me selfish or whatever, but that's the way I feel.

 

Oh I'm aware that everyone will, in their most primal form, disagree with me, and truthfully so would I in a situation whereby I had to choose between myself and another.

 

However it's an ideal to work towards, where you value other peoples' lives as much as you value your own. In a situation where your own life isn't in danger, it allows you to do things that are ultimately humane. Like banning the death penalty.

 

What are your views on those who kill dozens of people? Should these people be able to eventually go free under your beliefs? I'm not forming an opinion just yet just prodding your beliefs a little.

 

Yes, but let me explain a little before you jump to conclusions:

 

As I said I think ultimately everyone has something worth living for, you see it all the time, you see people genuinely reformed and people genuinely rehabilitated into new lives. HOWEVER, in your hypothetical situation the concern is, of course, public safety.

 

In these particular cases (and EVERYTHING has to be done on a case by case basis, but when it's a persons entire life, that is not too expensive or too wasteful), you really need professionals involved to determine whether or not someone is suitable for release.

 

No sane human kills another human without a "reason", be it a good one (self defense, for example), or a bad one (rage, revenge.) So the first step is determining if they're sane. If they are not sane (as deemed by a number of professionals), then releasing them would not be possible.

 

You really need a million details that I can't know just by the mere fact that the hypothetical person you're suggesting is, ultimately, a serial murderer.

 

I would say the VAST majority of people who go onto kill dozens of people would not be mentally stable, and not able to be released at any point, however the things is you can't just kill people who are mentally unstable, as they deserve an equal chance at life. There's always outliers, there's always that one person of many who turns out to be able to have a life they deserve to have, and when you start killing murderers, you start killing those people as well.

 

Another valid point is the concept of change. People are ever changing and people always deserve to have their sanity, and their public safety re-evaluated. Things professionals can do, and the masses can not.

 

(As a little subscript, it is very late and I'm mildly concerned my post may not have been overly coherent, so if there's anything you need re-explaining, let me know and I'll do it tomorrow when I'm a little more awake.)

 

I don't think ANY employer would like to hire anyone who has committed a capital crime such as rape or murder, so what's the point of rehabilitation?

[Synapsi]

I don't think ANY employer would like to hire anyone who has committed a capital crime such as rape or murder, so what's the point of rehabilitation?

I don't see where employment becomes a requirement or a necessary goal in rehabilitation...

[Egghebrecht]

This sums up my ideas about it perfectly: