The Death Penalty

[Geoff332]

Which argument was that?

[Sodfather]

Not to argue in favor of capital punishment, but I don't see how it costs less to kill prisoners than to support them for life.

Let's see...

Noose: $10, and it's reusable.
Gallows: $200 one-time fee? :)
Bag over Prisoner's Face: $5
Supporting Him for a Few Years: Not much.

Now for the lifers...

A Lifetime of Food: A lot compared to a few years.
Everything Else that I Can't Think Of: Probably adds to how much more lifers cost to support.

Haha, that's how I see it...So the cost of handling appeals is what puts the cost of sentencing people to death past that of supporting lifers? Some costly appeals...

<--- Stupid. :(

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Let me get this straight, we all agree that the system needs changing. Both sides agee that the appeals system is too costly. Both sides admit that criminals go free and the innocent sometimes get caught in the system.

Therefore what we need is a better system, or fix the flaws in this one, not a bunch of people pointing at the flaws in this one to claim support of their opinion. The current cost of appeals does not have a damn thing to do with effectiveness of CP, that is a lame (but apparently effective) attempt to distract attention. No one knows the number of people that would be killed of we simply let all the murders go, so pointing at the numbers of "innocents" killed by CP has nothing to balance it against. I have searched and never found a good accounting on what "innocents" have actually been killed by CP, all I have ever found were murderers and rapists that might not have committed the crime that put them to death.

Why is it that people wish to solve this problem with wishful thinking rather than using problem solving skills. It seems that the more important a subject is, the more likely man will stop using his brain and start using his feelings to solve it. Like I often say, irrational.

[Downwiththestereotype]

Sodfather: All the appeals and lefistics of having somone executed are very time cunsuming and expensive.

It is my beleif that Capital Punishment is tottaly unacceptable in a &#39;modern&#39; society, or a society of any kind for that matter.

First off, in no way does killinbg teach that killing is wrong, the state should not be above the law regarding death. Also, as someone said early (Sodfather I beleive, correct me if Im wrong) Life imprisonment is a far greater punishment than death, I know id rather be ececuted that rott away in a concrete and metal box for the rest of my years.

One of the more intresting arguments against the death penalty ive heard is as follows.
Say a Jurer is 90% certain that the defendant in the case they are involved in, is guilty. If life imprisonment is the likely conviction, then the Jurer will probably vote guilty because, if that doubt does brove true, at least he or she can be set free and cleared. However if Capital punishment is the likely conviction, The jurer may vot Not guilty, So that should he or she turn out to be not guilty, the jurer would not have the guilt of esning someone to there death.

This means that along side the risk of executring the inocent, you have the risk of letting more guilty people go free.

As for the argument of being a deterant, the death penalty has little or no effect. This is pmost likely because the vast majority of murders are carried out by 3 sorts of people. Thos who are commiting non pre-meditated murder (i.e. crimes of passion) There are those who are not able to think rationally about consiquences. and also there are those who may beleive they are above the law and wpont be caught. There are of course exceptions to theese, some of which may be effected by the deterent of the death penalty. However those cases must be few and far between otherwise the homocide rate would have dropped.

I would like someone please to present me with a solid argument of how capital punishment is superior to life imprisonment.

Peace all

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

DWStereotype

Another post to prove my point I see.

You might also want to clear up some poor logic in those assertions:
#1 CP is not a punishment, it is a way to remove a paticularly dangerous person from society before he kills again. It is to protect future victums not to punish anyone.
#2 A jury consists of more than one member that must vote unanimous to reach that decision. So your example of a single jury member being 90% sure is not relevant.
#3 I have already presented a solid arguement, you simply choose to ignore it.

Balence must be maintained, letting the guilty go also risks the lives of innocents.

[RebelWithanAK]

And how would CP do what Life Means Life doesn&#39;t in terms of keeping the dangerous off the streets?

And, for that matter, do you acknowledge that there is a chronic problem with wrongful convictions?

[Geoff332]

Interesting:

current cost of appeals does not have a damn thing to do with effectiveness of CP

Now, let&#39;s look at the context:

I think capital punishment has had its days, as most countries besides America have already realized. I think making the criminals live out the remainder of their lives in captivity is a greater punishment than death. The only downside is that tax dollars must be allocated for the upkeep of these prisoners. And, also, as Section 8 said, innocent prisoners are being executed - which is absolutely not acceptable.

In my reading this, Sodfather was telling us that the only valid argument for the death penalty was cost. On all other grounds, it wasn&#39;t valid. I then pointed out that at present the cost is actually cheaper to execute imprison someone for life, rather than execute them. This was not an argument, but a statement of fact (I&#39;m not sure you know the difference between the two), and I provided evidence to support it. I also said that any substantive changes that would reduce the costs were likely to increase the incidence of innocent people being executed.

Then went off on a rant about liberals which did little but reveal your particular biases. The jewell in the crown was

No one knows the number of people that would be killed of we simply let all the murders go

That is a basically nonsense argument. No-one has suggested such a thing as letting all murderers go, except you.

So, let&#39;s get back to the facts.

Your argument is pretty simple. The only substantive point that you have raised is that the death penalty is a mechanism that prevents people from re-offending. If that is the substance of your argument, then the simple reply is that life without parole also prevents re-offending. So that argument is pretty much null and void. I see no other arguments in what you have said.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Interesting Geoff apparently lacks the ability to determine that Sodfather and GreatWyrm are different entities, implying that in his mind only two entities exist, himself and all others...

[Geoff332]

Sorry, a slightly confusing sentence there. I mean that GWB went off on a rant, not Sodfather. Either way, can we try dealing with the topic instead of your rather (and unintersting) random rants?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Okay, let&#39;s attack your random rants instead...

We have at least one occurance of someone sentenced to life rather than death killing again. We have zero occurances of dead people killing again, so your assertion that they are equal is complete BS.

[Downwiththestereotype]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-27-2003 09:55 AM
Let me get this straight, we all agree that the system needs changing. Both sides agee that the appeals system is too costly. Both sides admit that criminals go free and the innocent sometimes get caught in the system.

Therefore what we need is a better system, or fix the flaws in this one, not a bunch of people pointing at the flaws in this one to claim support of their opinion. The current cost of appeals does not have a damn thing to do with effectiveness of CP, that is a lame (but apparently effective) attempt to distract attention. No one knows the number of people that would be killed of we simply let all the murders go, so pointing at the numbers of "innocents" killed by CP has nothing to balance it against. I have searched and never found a good accounting on what "innocents" have actually been killed by CP, all I have ever found were murderers and rapists that might not have committed the crime that put them to death.

Why is it that people wish to solve this problem with wishful thinking rather than using problem solving skills. It seems that the more important a subject is, the more likely man will stop using his brain and start using his feelings to solve it. Like I often say, irrational.

GW of B

Can you describe to me a system that can garantee 100% that an innocent person will never be convicted? and can you suggest a fair version where several different leveles of appeal are inevitable? Because theese leveles of appeal arent there for the sheer hell of being there, they are there to serve a purpose That purpose being to make sure that inocent person is not executed (The effectiveness of theese appeals systems is another matter).

You seem stuck with this Idea of freedom versus CP, this is nonsense, No one has said they should be set free, just drop it&#33; What we are all saying is that Life imprisonment is the more civilised and Morally correct option.

1. So is life imprisonment, you seem to miss the point of my question, which was specificly what greater advantages does CP have Imprisonment? And im talking about the real world, not an idealistic world with an effective and super accurate judicial system

2. 90% was an ideal figure, I was trying to ilistrate the point that jurers may be swayed by the idea of having a persons death on there conscience. If jurers and inclined to vote not guilty because they dont want to condem someone to death, then your overwhelming fear of killers going free might be a reality.

3. see 1

[Downwiththestereotype]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-28-2003 09:13 AM
Okay, let&#39;s attack your random rants instead...

We have at least one occurance of someone sentenced to life rather than death killing again. We have zero occurances of dead people killing again, so your assertion that they are equal is complete BS.

I would llike to see the figures regarding people cleared from death row killing again before I am inclined to accept that argument