Why does America coddle our KILLERS?

[tinybear]

So what are you saying? We should kill them all as soon as possible?

[tinybear]

And who says we coddle our killers?

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...6.htm&sc=rontz

[leftcider]

Quote by: castille Well, back to the original intent of the thread (thanks tinybear, for bringing your anti-China rants in here): A simple experience of hard labour will allow lifetime criminals to repay their debt to society. Instead of spending billions of taxpayer dollars so they can watch TV and sit around fidgeting, throw them into a dark mine and let them keep digging. After all, they're not going to be released anyway, and the death penalty is too harsh (and expensive). Might's well treat them like the scum they are.

Mining and natural resource operations are private ventures. So essentially you are advocating involuntary forced (slave) labor for the betterment of natural resource CEOs, while taking away jobs from non-criminals that have no other work options.

[tinybear]

They are not private ventures in China. That's why castille is confused. He thinks America is like China.

[castille]

Tinybear - Shut up and stop trying to derail the topic. Send me a PM if you want to argue about how evil China is or whatever you're trying to say.


Leftcider - Not all industrial activity is conducted by private companies. Most prisons already have some form of labour activity (that's where the whole joke about making license plates come from). Prisoners are already building roads, putting them to work in mines and dangerous infrastructural activity wouldn't be that difficult.

[Pooeypants]

Tinybear, I've said already, if you want to talk about the ethical treatment of workers in China etc, start a new thread. Stop feuding with Castille, I know you and him have basically opposite views in the mainland but please stop spilling this into thread...

[MerlinsByte]

I agree with some of the others here like Wrachel and Poop pants. First, before the state gets in the murder business, they should be sure that the to be executed is in fact guilty.

It is a matter of public record that many (I think the last count was 27 confirmed) innocents were Murdered by the state before to 1990. Many more were on death row awaiting murder by the state when exonerated by new evidence such as DNA.

Most Americans want revenge, not justice. The death penalty is not only barbaric it is makes the supporters as guilty as the perpetrators, or non perpetrators, that they wish to condemn!

[tivodan1116]

First, let me say that i am someone who is coming from a background specifically educated in the Criminal Justice field. By this I mean that I will finish (9 more credits!) a Bachelor's of Science in Criminal Justice this May and continue on to law school. I have actually focused my study on the areas that interest me, Adjudications and Corrections (as opposed to some of my classmates who concentrate in Forensics, Criminology, Police Process, etc).

All of that being said, the death penalty does not work. Not only does it result in innocent people being put to death (the seminal 1992 study by Radelet, Bedau, and Putnam says at least 23 in the history of the United States), it does not serve as a deterrant.

The study and measure of whether a particular crime can be prevented by punishment (because, after all, that is what most death penalty advocates say they are interested in, regardless of the fact that the real reason is often simple revenge) is called deterrence theory. There are two elements of deterrence theory: Certainty and Severity. In debating the death penalty vs. life imprisionment as a deterrent, we are debating the Severity effect of deterrence, that is, whether a more severe punishment will create a deterrent effect. The problem here is twofold: First, very few murders are premeditated as such. A 2002 Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics study found that less than 21% of murders are premeditated. This means that for 79% of murders, the deterrence effect does not exist whatsoever, because the perpetrators did not think about anything regarding murder before the crime, let alone the possibility of the death penalty.
While it is somewhat of a stretch to extend this to think about how many murders were prevented by the death penalty being in place, I think it is safe to say that few criminals or would-be criminals thought about their crime in excess before their act. The majority of crime is irrational by nature. Rational criminals are few and far between, as I can attest to from my work in the Monroe County Public Defender's Office.

As far as the second half of this debate, that keeping serious offenders alive in prison is "coddling" them, again I refer to my work at the Monroe County Public Defender's Office. The common complaint among average working people that there are "only" 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week in which to get "everything" done is somewhat skewed in prision. The reality is that there are 24 hours in a day, and they must be filled with activity, lest the offenders turn to something more interesting, like assaulting other inmates or guards, using drugs, et cetera.

To those who would say to that "let them perform dangerous hard labor, with no tv, no meals but bread and water, and no education, reform programs, or anything like that," I remind them that over 99% of criminals will not die in prison. This means they will get out and return to your community at some point. As a civilized society, we must ask ourselves, what kind of people to we want to see when they get out of prison? Do we want to have improved their condition while punishing them, or do we want them to be even more bitter and dejected, incapable of doing anything but the behavior that put them behind bars in the first place?

[Comrade]

The reason we are so nice? Liberals, of course.
Taking life is wrong! In all cases! America out of Iraq!

I read someone say that life in prison is a lot more hard on the inmate, but that is hardly important. If people are fine with lethal injection, sure, go ahead. It would be more fun (and cheaper) to just shoot them. And if it fails to kill them the first time, most guns hold multiple cartridges nowadays.

The electric chair was a stupid idea. So was the gas chamber. Of course, after they found the Nazi death camps people started to think gassing people was in bad taste, didn't they?

The point isn't to be merciful or the opposite, the purpose is that, once someone has committed a crime that is impermissable (as opposed to the permissable crimes?), we render them nonexistent. Not a nice thing, but some people deserve it.

[FIFI]

Thank you. But its not just about cost, space and punishment per say. Alot of what the death penalty offeres is closure. The killer is gone, dead, and the families can comfort themselves with the fact that the bastard is in hell, unable to hurt them anymore. My mother always feared that the man responsible for so much pain in the family would either escape and find us, or be let out. You scoff and think its impossble that they would be paroled right? WRONG. Rogers (the man guilty) not only got off death row and now has life imprisonment, but also has FULL privleges, meaning group activities, computer / internet, t.v. (etc) heck, that man has it better then I do at times, and he doesnt even have to pay rent!

Now does this sound logical?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: FIFI FULL privleges, meaning group activities, computer / internet, t.v. (etc) heck, that man has it better then I do at times, and he doesnt even have to pay rent! Now does this sound logical?

First of all, I am about fed up with this line of reasoning. FYI Fifi:

-Prisons do not have internet access
-tv is severly limited in the vast majority of cases
-The group that supports priveledges the most? PRISON GUARDS. Because there are 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week, and if they aren't doing something constructive or even just busywork, they'll be assaulting each other, doing drugs, or killing guards. What does someone on death row/life imprisonment have to lose by assaulting another prisoner or a guard? If there is nothing to lose and no reward to gain, what is to stop them from misbehaving?

Here, I will save you the trouble of replying...
"They should just be sitting there thinking about their crime for xxxxxx years"

But don't forget, over 99% of criminals do not die in prison. What kind of people do we want when they get out? It's hard liners like you, uneducated in corrections theory, that keep the recidivism high because every time a program is started that gives these people a chance to turn their life around someone screams, "no, don't give them anything, we want Jean Valjean to come out more bitter and angry than when he went in" and a pandering politician kills it.

Furthermore, if you have never been inside a prison for an extended period of time, you have no business describing the environment in any way.

Considering you have free time and the freedom and ability (and technology: personal computer, internet, comfy chair, et cetera) to post on this message board, there is no prisoner in the world that has it "better then you." You are taking your argument to the ad absurdium level.

[tinybear]

Is there evidence which demonstrates that "rehabilitation" of offenders actually work though? And what does rehab entail?

[Pooeypants]

I think Rehab should mean giving the criminals skills that they can use in legitimate careers when they come out of jail. This should reduce their number of reoffenders as they can do something else other than crime to earn a living.

[tinybear]

You think? Has it ever worked?

[tivodan1116]

there is research as far as what programs lower recidivism. As i said, though, the problem is that whenever a program gets implemented, it gets killed by hard liners who accuse politicians of being "soft on crime" just because they want to give criminals the chance to turn their life around.

[FIFI]

I am not necessarily against rehibilitating certin criminals, aka those whose offenses DID NOT include killing, raping and / or hurting other people, but those who do things of those nature cannot be "cured" and then released back into society because these new skills would not deture them from killing or raping again.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tinybear It's the truth you know. Look at those mining disasters. There's a power shortage in China at the moment and the top priority is to increase output in the mines. Human lives are dispensable. :(

Well my initial question is where is your evidence, and my second question is why do you critisise China's misplaced priorities, and not those of the USA? I am right in assuming you are a conservative? If so what is your view of the republican politicians placing the middle eastern oil as greater value than the lives of Iraqi children?

[tinybear]

Because China kills her own people that's why. I'm not saying it's right to kill any innocent person, but it's 10 times worse when you kill your own people. That's when you know your mandate to rule has expired (even assuming you legitimately possessed it in the first place).