So now that one of the Boston Bombers is in custody, should he receive the death penalty?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Kopikatsu:

Jux:

"Why yes, of course, you're right, Bruce. Emotion is always the enemy of true justice. Thank you. You've always been a good friend."
--Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent

And then you realize that he uses a coin to decide whether or not someone should die. It is emotionless by virtue of being chance (Except in the continuities where he cheats and has a weighted coin), but the punishment still ends with death in all circumstances.

Never really expected anyone to take a tongue in cheek comment about quotes from fictional characters and respond to it seriously. But if we're going to discuss this seriously, while Dent's method may have been emotionless and by chance[1], that does not mean that all emotionless justice is chance.

[1] And not really justice at all.

No, because his trial should be broadcasted for the whole world to see; to humiliate him simply by having every human who have ever been destroyed by terrorism to simply silently scorn him and as an example to discourage upcommers from thinking of becoming a terrorist.

BBboy20:
No, because his trial should be broadcasted for the whole world to see; to humiliate him simply by having every human who have ever been destroyed by terrorism to simply silently scorn him and as an example to discourage upcommers from thinking of becoming a terrorist.

That'd just give him more publicity, same as complaints about how Breivik's was handled. Sure, he should get a trial, but the media should be careful how they report it. They won't be, of course.

One thing strikes me as funny in all this. With 1 frag grenade and a crowded area i could kill more than 5 people so why with 3 bombs did he score so lowly? You are lucky in America that your nutjobs are all thick as pigshit...best access to quality weapons in the world and still they are useless :p

CannibalCorpses:
One thing strikes me as funny in all this. With 1 frag grenade and a crowded area i could kill more than 5 people so why with 3 bombs did he score so lowly? You are lucky in America that your nutjobs are all thick as pigshit...best access to quality weapons in the world and still they are useless :p

Er...do you think we just sell hand grenades in open air markets or something? Most explosive ordinance is illegal without a number of permits which aren't exactly easy to get.

Zeckt:
Now that I had time to relax you guys really should be more careful throwing the word "torture" around like it means nothing and discuss the points of the people that are trying to debate with you, because I would never condone torture of any kind. And for the record 3 of the people who quoted me used the word torture.

Uhh... No. I'm look at the posts right now and using Ctrl+f and I swear to God there is only one instance.

So let's slap the perpetrator in the wrist and put him in jail where he can play basketball and watch tv in the common room the rest of his life and laugh at those kids thinking about how successful he was and how he won.

Question: Why exactly do you care how this guy feels? It doesn't affect you or any of the people he murdered or maimed. The guy's in custody, unable to harm any innocent people any more, so what's the big deal if he feels like he "won?" That's not the point of catching him. The point is to remove him from society.

Also, you seem to be grossly misinformed as to what life in prison is actually like. It is one of the farthest things I can think of from a "slap on the wrist." Some people even advocate life sentences over the death penalty because they consider it a worse punishment. Life in prison is less about watching TV and shooting hoops than it is about staring at the ceiling for 12 hours a day and spending the rest of your time trying not to get shanked.

Oh, and I find it ironic you accuse me of being disrespectful after being upset of being accused of condoning torture. As if accusing me of such a thing is not disrespectful in return. This topic is way too biased to exist and to continue discussion, all you all are doing is ganging up on people who do not share you view.

You may have been upset, and others may have been disrespectful towards you first, but that does not change the fact that you were, indeed, being highly disrespectful. Again (I can not reiterate this enough), only one person in the entire quote chain even mentioned torture in reply to one of your posts. That is not an excuse for you to freak out and say that people are accusing you and ganging up on you. And in regards to ganging up, what did you expect? This is a discussion forum. We're not going to start criticizing people who agree with us. If you ask me, you are far too emotional about this topic for your own good.

If your stance is "Who needs to understand the circumstances, kill him, he's a monster", that means you're willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people because you do not care about understanding and prevention - and thus, innocent people will die before any "monster" can be identified, because you refused to gain the understanding that might have let you act in advance next time, and prevent those people from dying.

Some people seem to be completely okay with paying such a price, for some reason.

That's disturbing.

Vegosiux:
If your stance is "Who needs to understand the circumstances, kill him, he's a monster", that means you're willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people because you do not care about understanding and prevention - and thus, innocent people will die before any "monster" can be identified, because you refused to gain the understanding that might have let you act in advance next time, and prevent those people from dying.

Some people seem to be completely okay with paying such a price, for some reason.

That's disturbing.

I think it's very understandable that people want to dismiss other people as monsters rather than think about why they have done terrible things. If nothing else, the latter introduces the uncomfortable reality that we might have been or may in the future become mass murderers too, with the requisite differences in circumstances.

Agema:
I'm quite interested in why the younger brother committed these acts. People who go on to commit this sort of terrorism tend to fit a certain profile, and the deceased elder brother matches very well. The younger, however, does not, so I'm curious to see what drove him to it.

My theory: Similar to the DC sniper, the elder acted as a surrogate father figure and was the main planner of the incident. Being the closest thing to a father and being taken cared of by him for the previous decade when their father was denied residency and deported, the younger brother likely looked up to him (and likely idolized him) and went along with the plan out of loyalty.

Agema:

Vegosiux:
If your stance is "Who needs to understand the circumstances, kill him, he's a monster", that means you're willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people because you do not care about understanding and prevention - and thus, innocent people will die before any "monster" can be identified, because you refused to gain the understanding that might have let you act in advance next time, and prevent those people from dying.

Some people seem to be completely okay with paying such a price, for some reason.

That's disturbing.

I think it's very understandable that people want to dismiss other people as monsters rather than think about why they have done terrible things. If nothing else, the latter introduces the uncomfortable reality that we might have been or may in the future become mass murderers too, with the requisite differences in circumstances.

Indeed, you're right. But that's just the thing, as you say it's "understandable". And understanding is the first step to change. I'm not saying people should be "forced" to understand, it's just that as long as they refuse to, they're only fooling themselves that the problem is solved.

It's almost funny how there's always an outrage about "Why would someone do something like this?" My answer is, increasingly more frequent, "Because you insisted on killing all the people who could have told you why."

Well, according to Yahoo, the suspect has officially been charged with two counts of... *cough*...

"Using a weapon of mass destruction".

Oh for fuck's sake.

Was Tim McVeigh (who used a MUCH larger yield bomb) charged with use of a WMD?

*checking*

Huh, he actually was. No kidding. Thought that was a Bush Jr. construct... you learn something new every day.

Off-Topic: McVeigh claimed he did what he did in order to stop a tyrannical dictator and a government that had forgotten its people by killing them at Waco. If what he did happened in 2012, how much heroism would he get from Fox News?

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
Barbarism isn't always a bad thing, in this case it's pretty clear they killed people so in this case the death penalty is perfect.

So, you feel barbarism is sometimes acceptable. I'd love to hear some justification for this one. I've already laid out a few reasons in post #88 why the DP is not only bad in this specific case, but why it is a weak institution.

Barbarism is acceptable when it's better than the alternatives. I think my biggest problem with keeping him alive is this, why should we provide him with shelter, food, and plumbing when he's done nothing to deserve any of that? He threw that all away when he bombed innocent people, murdered a cop, and shot at cops. Who would pay for the things he needs to live? It shouldn't be the taxpayers, that's not justice. I know it sounds cruel but he's a terrorist so he'll be treated like one. Leaving him alive isn't justice and thus not an option. I know you mentioned innocent people being executed but no system is perfect. Yes it's tragic but human error is inevitable so you have to choose between justice for the guilty and saving innocents and I figure that so long as the number of guilty executed outweighs by a good margin the number of innocents then more justice is being served than injustice.

Xan Krieger:
Barbarism is acceptable when it's better than the alternatives.

And how do you plan to show it is better than the alternatives? You're not even laying out what you think the alternatives are, much less why it's better.

Xan Krieger:
I think my biggest problem with keeping him alive is this, why should we provide him with shelter, food, and plumbing when he's done nothing to deserve any of that? He threw that all away when he bombed innocent people, murdered a cop, and shot at cops.

Then I would assume you are in favor of the death penalty for anyone that has murdered? Or is there something that makes this guy special?

Xan Krieger:
Who would pay for the things he needs to live? It shouldn't be the taxpayers, that's not justice. I know it sounds cruel but he's a terrorist so he'll be treated like one. Leaving him alive isn't justice and thus not an option.

Taxpayers pay for Guantanamo, I don't see you calling for the execution of every suspected terrorist held there. You say leaving him alive isn't justice, but you haven't shown why justice cannot be served if he lives.

Xan Krieger:
I know you mentioned innocent people being executed but no system is perfect. Yes it's tragic but human error is inevitable so you have to choose between justice for the guilty and saving innocents and I figure that so long as the number of guilty executed outweighs by a good margin the number of innocents then more justice is being served than injustice.

A false dichotomy. You haven't shown that justice = death, so you can't say it's an either or choice. If the guilty are locked up, and seperated from society (which is one of the primary functions of prison), I would put a much higher value on saving an innocent life.

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
Barbarism is acceptable when it's better than the alternatives.

And how do you plan to show it is better than the alternatives? You're not even laying out what you think the alternatives are, much less why it's better.

Xan Krieger:
I think my biggest problem with keeping him alive is this, why should we provide him with shelter, food, and plumbing when he's done nothing to deserve any of that? He threw that all away when he bombed innocent people, murdered a cop, and shot at cops.

Then I would assume you are in favor of the death penalty for anyone that has murdered? Or is there something that makes this guy special?

Xan Krieger:
Who would pay for the things he needs to live? It shouldn't be the taxpayers, that's not justice. I know it sounds cruel but he's a terrorist so he'll be treated like one. Leaving him alive isn't justice and thus not an option.

Taxpayers pay for Guantanamo, I don't see you calling for the execution of every suspected terrorist held there. You say leaving him alive isn't justice, but you haven't shown why justice cannot be served if he lives.

Xan Krieger:
I know you mentioned innocent people being executed but no system is perfect. Yes it's tragic but human error is inevitable so you have to choose between justice for the guilty and saving innocents and I figure that so long as the number of guilty executed outweighs by a good margin the number of innocents then more justice is being served than injustice.

A false dichotomy. You haven't shown that justice = death, so you can't say it's an either or choice. If the guilty are locked up, and seperated from society (which is one of the primary functions of prison), I would put a much higher value on saving an innocent life.

The only alternative I can think of is life in prison but the problem is he'd still be alive.

I am in favor of the death penalty when it be without a doubt proven that the person is guilty (like the guy who shot up Fort Hood or the guy who shot up that movie theater in Colorado).

Obama said he would close Guantanamo, he failed so far and I hate it. We really need to do something about that place.

As for "justice = death" what makes "justice = life in prison"?

Xan Krieger:
The only alternative I can think of is life in prison but the problem is he'd still be alive.

And why is that a problem? Can you think of nothing that would make him worth keeping alive?

Xan Krieger:
I am in favor of the death penalty when it be without a doubt proven that the person is guilty (like the guy who shot up Fort Hood or the guy who shot up that movie theater in Colorado).

So you're in favor of executing the mentally ill?

Xan Krieger:
Obama said he would close Guantanamo, he failed so far and I hate it. We really need to do something about that place.

You're dodging the question.

Xan Krieger:
As for "justice = death" what makes "justice = life in prison"?

Justice can be many things imo, but you're not going to turn this around on me. You stated that leaving him alive isn't justice, I want to know why. Do you feel reciprocity is needed for there to be justice?

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
The only alternative I can think of is life in prison but the problem is he'd still be alive.

And why is that a problem? Can you think of nothing that would make him worth keeping alive?

Xan Krieger:
I am in favor of the death penalty when it be without a doubt proven that the person is guilty (like the guy who shot up Fort Hood or the guy who shot up that movie theater in Colorado).

So you're in favor of executing the mentally ill?

Xan Krieger:
Obama said he would close Guantanamo, he failed so far and I hate it. We really need to do something about that place.

You're dodging the question.

Xan Krieger:
As for "justice = death" what makes "justice = life in prison"?

Justice can be many things imo, but you're not going to turn this around on me. You stated that leaving him alive isn't justice, I want to know why.

The only reason to keep him alive is to find out why he did it. Once we learn that there's no further point. As for the mentally ill, they still killed people so they still meet the criteria for the death penalty. Also no it is not right that we the tax payers are still paying for that place. Finally he killed people beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my mind the death penalty is the only penalty for him.

Xan Krieger:
The only reason to keep him alive is to find out why he did it. Once we learn that there's no further point.

You don't think not making him a martyr is worthy of keeping him alive? You don't think that the chance of rehabilitation (even if he does serve a life sentence) and being an example for others isn't justice served?

Xan Krieger:
As for the mentally ill, they still killed people so they still meet the criteria for the death penalty.

So you subscribe then to a 'justice as reciprocity' model then?

Xan Krieger:
Also no it is not right that we the tax payers are still paying for that place.

Should the people held there be put to death? Yes or no?

Xan Krieger:
Finally he killed people beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my mind the death penalty is the only penalty for him.

Why?

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
The only reason to keep him alive is to find out why he did it. Once we learn that there's no further point.

You don't think not making him a martyr is worthy of keeping him alive? You don't think that the chance of rehabilitation (even if he does serve a life sentence) and being an example for others isn't justice served?

Xan Krieger:
As for the mentally ill, they still killed people so they still meet the criteria for the death penalty.

So you subscribe then to a 'justice as reciprocity' model then?

Xan Krieger:
Also no it is not right that we the tax payers are still paying for that place.

Should the people held there be put to death? Yes or no?

Xan Krieger:
Finally he killed people beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my mind the death penalty is the only penalty for him.

Why?

There isn't rehabilitation for someone who does something like what he did short of bringing the dead back to life. I don't believe he can ever make it up to the families of his victims. As for him being a martyr I ask "to who?". Don't think anyone will be inspired by this dude. As for the next thing I guess you could say that, justice doesn't discriminate.
As for guantanamo, not unless they are proven guilty of murdering people.
As for the final thing, that's just what I think, I don't know why.

Xan Krieger:
There isn't rehabilitation for someone who does something like what he did short of bringing the dead back to life.

That wouldn't be rehabilitation, that would be reparation. Rehabilitation is the process of reforming the offenders behavior, so by definition, it would be possible.

Xan Krieger:
I don't believe he can ever make it up to the families of his victims.

And the victims and victims families are the only ones in consideration? edit: I also like how you speak for the victims and their families. How very nice. What if there was a victim or victims family member that didn't want him put to death?

Xan Krieger:
As for him being a martyr I ask "to who?". Don't think anyone will be inspired by this dude.

Then you are woefully ignorant.

Xan Krieger:
As for the next thing I guess you could say that, justice doesn't discriminate.

That doesn't answer the question.

Xan Krieger:
As for guantanamo, not unless they are proven guilty of murdering people.

Oh, so you mean like, in a court of law?

Xan Krieger:
As for the final thing, that's just what I think, I don't know why.

And you feel that something you think, but don't know why, should be implemented? If you can't even explain your own line of thinking, why should anyone buy into it?

Zeckt:
So let's slap the perpetrator in the wrist and put him in jail where he can play basketball and watch tv in the common room the rest of his life and laugh at those kids thinking about how successful he was and how he won.

If he is a religious extremist thats hell for him. His idea of winning is hurting the enemy then being executed as a martyr. If you wanna REWARD the guy kill him. THEN him and his cause have won. I say let him rot. Give him nothing. He wants to die a hero? Let him sit in a dank cell until no one remembers his name. Until the people he worked for forget what he did. Let him die unforgotten for a cause he failed to make stick in our minds forever. THATS the true victory in my mind.

Stop making emotional appeals, this stuff REALLY gets to me too . As of now im seriously considering a career in emergency response or red cross warzone first aid rather than just becoming a regular GP. Even with the horrific things in mind i cant imagine wanting to kill the perpetraitors. The feelings i feel when i see that mutiliation is the desire to help rather than harm. I feel motivated very strongly. It makes me feel awful and angry and frustrated. And from that anger comes the overwhelming desire to BE that first responder. To be the medic that gets to save those kids lives, that gets to make that difference, that fights the horrific damage rather than just says "Lemme kill him and have done with it". See thats why i cant agree with you. Youre taking your rage. And turning it into something that is quite franky fucking useless. Killing him wont give that boy his arm back. It wont make that suffering hurt less.

Its extremely easy and lazy to call to execute a person and feel like you have done good. But you havnt. And thats why i think all justification for the death penalty is faulty. People just wanna feel like they did something useful when they did fuck all to help anyone or fix anything. Its a waste of energy time and money to take a head. A bloody head wont make the kid feel better. Instead become a paramedic. Join law enforcement. Form a neighborhood watch. Do your jury duty and be impartial. Coach a youth programme. These are things that prevent these tragedies. These are things the kid can look at when hes an adult and say "People are fighting to ensure no one has to suffer like i do". And i hope that gives him hope.

I cant blame you for your anger. I share it. I can implore you to try and direct it in a way that will do more good than crying for blood.

I don't think so. I believe it's a worse punishment to spend the rest of your life in prison than to die and be released essential.

And in certain cases I don't believe in rehabilitation. This is one of these cases. Life without chance of ever getting out no matter how many times he seems a "changed man" or if he miraculously becomes a good person until the end of his days. If you take another human's life (not in self defense)than I believe you should be locked up with food/water and nothing but your thoughts until you die of natural causes.

Xan Krieger:
Finally he killed people beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my mind the death penalty is the only penalty for him.

Up above, you said that a few innocent lives were acceptable collateral damage for the death penalty.

What morally differentiates your murder from theirs? The fact that you feel justified?

DugMachine:
I don't think so. I believe it's a worse punishment to spend the rest of your life in prison than to die and be released essential.

And in certain cases I don't believe in rehabilitation. This is one of these cases. Life without chance of ever getting out no matter how many times he seems a "changed man" or if he miraculously becomes a good person until the end of his days. If you take another human's life (not in self defense)than I believe you should be locked up with food/water and nothing but your thoughts until you die of natural causes.

Is it a worse punishment for the criminal or for society, though? It costs ~$60,000 a year to care for someone in prison, if I remember correctly. Because they actually get nice things in prison, like TVs, libraries, computers, and better food than the schools get (This is because human rights lobbyists are assholes), free healthcare, etc.

Funny tidbit: If you're ill when they come to execute you on death row, they have to wait until you've recovered before finally killing you.

Kopikatsu:

Is it a worse punishment for the criminal or for society, though? It costs ~$60,000 a year to care for someone in prison, if I remember correctly. Because they actually get nice things in prison, like TVs, libraries, computers, and better food than the schools get (This is because human rights lobbyists are assholes), free healthcare, etc.

Funny tidbit: If you're ill when they come to execute you on death row, they have to wait until you've recovered before finally killing you.

I'd still say it's a worse punishment. You may get computers but I doubt they get access to much. Maybe an email to a relative every now and then... don't see too many prisoners updating their facebooks or "commenting from prison lul txt it" on youtube.

Anyways. I see your point but it's the price civilized society pays to keep criminals out of their lives. Sure you could kill them but that just seems like the easy way out. Because one way or another, they're going to be on Death row for awhile. We don't just take them out back and put a bullet in their head after they're sentenced.

Kopikatsu:

DugMachine:
I don't think so. I believe it's a worse punishment to spend the rest of your life in prison than to die and be released essential.

And in certain cases I don't believe in rehabilitation. This is one of these cases. Life without chance of ever getting out no matter how many times he seems a "changed man" or if he miraculously becomes a good person until the end of his days. If you take another human's life (not in self defense)than I believe you should be locked up with food/water and nothing but your thoughts until you die of natural causes.

Is it a worse punishment for the criminal or for society, though? It costs ~$60,000 a year to care for someone in prison, if I remember correctly. Because they actually get nice things in prison, like TVs, libraries, computers, and better food than the schools get (This is because human rights lobbyists are assholes), free healthcare, etc.

Funny tidbit: If you're ill when they come to execute you on death row, they have to wait until you've recovered before finally killing you.

Due to the lengthy and almost exhaustive appeals process, sending an inmate to death row actually costs more than simply feeding and housing them for the rest of their lives. This is a consequence of trying to ensure that innocent people are not executed. We need the long line of appeals in order to ensure that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" really holds true. And even then, the process isn't perfect; we still execute innocent people. In order to make the death penalty a less expensive option, you'd need to reduce the number of appeals and/or the level of scrutiny they receive, which can only lead to more innocents being wrongly killed. I'd much rather go with the -relatively- less expensive option that ensures innocent people aren't killed for crimes they didn't commit.

DugMachine:

Kopikatsu:

Is it a worse punishment for the criminal or for society, though? It costs ~$60,000 a year to care for someone in prison, if I remember correctly. Because they actually get nice things in prison, like TVs, libraries, computers, and better food than the schools get (This is because human rights lobbyists are assholes), free healthcare, etc.

Funny tidbit: If you're ill when they come to execute you on death row, they have to wait until you've recovered before finally killing you.

I'd still say it's a worse punishment. You may get computers but I doubt they get access to much. Maybe an email to a relative every now and then... don't see too many prisoners updating their facebooks or "commenting from prison lul txt it" on youtube.

Anyways. I see your point but it's the price civilized society pays to keep criminals out of their lives. Sure you could kill them but that just seems like the easy way out. Because one way or another, they're going to be on Death row for awhile. We don't just take them out back and put a bullet in their head after they're sentenced.

On the other hand, there are ex-cons who are released from prison and cant adjust to life on the outside and purposely go back to prison because that is home to them. So prisons (at least in the US) aren't THAT bad. Now if this was a Phillipean prison or South American prison, different story. As for the prisoners will make his life hell, maybe in the first few years. If he can survive that, then he is most likely fine.

I don't see a life sentence as a "worse" punishment as individuals can thrive in prison. It is, unfortunately, the most practical one as it costs less for a life sentence than the death penalty.

Now, a worse punishment would be to give him a life sentence AND a bounty to whichever prisoner kills him, a bounty that goes up every year.

Godavari:

Due to the lengthy and almost exhaustive appeals process, sending an inmate to death row actually costs more than simply feeding and housing them for the rest of their lives. This is a consequence of trying to ensure that innocent people are not executed. We need the long line of appeals in order to ensure that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" really holds true. And even then, the process isn't perfect; we still execute innocent people. In order to make the death penalty a less expensive option, you'd need to reduce the number of appeals and/or the level of scrutiny they receive, which can only lead to more innocents being wrongly killed. I'd much rather go with the -relatively- less expensive option that ensures innocent people aren't killed for crimes they didn't commit.

Although not mentioned in this thread, I have suggested before (on this forum even) that we allow two appeals within a span of 2-5 years, depending on how long the proceedings for the first goes. If the appeals are either not used or aren't successful, then they just drag the inmate out back and put a $0.25 bullet into their heads. (I'm sure the government can actually get bullets cheaper than I can though, so it probably doesn't even cost a quarter to kill someone).

The alternative is hanging, which is probably even more cost effective.

I'm starting to wonder how many people on average apply when "executioner" comes up on open job listings. It'd be an interesting thing to know, really.

Kopikatsu:

Godavari:

Due to the lengthy and almost exhaustive appeals process, sending an inmate to death row actually costs more than simply feeding and housing them for the rest of their lives. This is a consequence of trying to ensure that innocent people are not executed. We need the long line of appeals in order to ensure that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" really holds true. And even then, the process isn't perfect; we still execute innocent people. In order to make the death penalty a less expensive option, you'd need to reduce the number of appeals and/or the level of scrutiny they receive, which can only lead to more innocents being wrongly killed. I'd much rather go with the -relatively- less expensive option that ensures innocent people aren't killed for crimes they didn't commit.

Although not mentioned in this thread, I have suggested before (on this forum even) that we allow two appeals within a span of 2-5 years, depending on how long the proceedings for the first goes. If the appeals are either not used or aren't successful, then they just drag the inmate out back and put a $0.25 bullet into their heads. (I'm sure the government can actually get bullets cheaper than I can though, so it probably doesn't even cost a quarter to kill someone).

The alternative is hanging, which is probably even more cost effective.

So essentially yes, you are okay with killing even more innocent people than we do now for the sake of money. Brilliant.

Kopikatsu:

Godavari:

Due to the lengthy and almost exhaustive appeals process, sending an inmate to death row actually costs more than simply feeding and housing them for the rest of their lives. This is a consequence of trying to ensure that innocent people are not executed. We need the long line of appeals in order to ensure that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" really holds true. And even then, the process isn't perfect; we still execute innocent people. In order to make the death penalty a less expensive option, you'd need to reduce the number of appeals and/or the level of scrutiny they receive, which can only lead to more innocents being wrongly killed. I'd much rather go with the -relatively- less expensive option that ensures innocent people aren't killed for crimes they didn't commit.

Although not mentioned in this thread, I have suggested before (on this forum even) that we allow two appeals within a span of 2-5 years, depending on how long the proceedings for the first goes. If the appeals are either not used or aren't successful, then they just drag the inmate out back and put a $0.25 bullet into their heads. (I'm sure the government can actually get bullets cheaper than I can though, so it probably doesn't even cost a quarter to kill someone).

The alternative is hanging, which is probably even more cost effective.

Brilliant, screw humane methods, let's just save money and suffocate them with a reusable 20c plastic bag!
Especially hanging is about the worst formerly mainstream execution method you could ask for. Rope too short? You're watching a man slowly and painfully suffocating. Too long? Bloody decapitation, yay. And even a proper rope length is no guarantee that it will work as intended.

Godavari:

Kopikatsu:

Godavari:

Due to the lengthy and almost exhaustive appeals process, sending an inmate to death row actually costs more than simply feeding and housing them for the rest of their lives. This is a consequence of trying to ensure that innocent people are not executed. We need the long line of appeals in order to ensure that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" really holds true. And even then, the process isn't perfect; we still execute innocent people. In order to make the death penalty a less expensive option, you'd need to reduce the number of appeals and/or the level of scrutiny they receive, which can only lead to more innocents being wrongly killed. I'd much rather go with the -relatively- less expensive option that ensures innocent people aren't killed for crimes they didn't commit.

Although not mentioned in this thread, I have suggested before (on this forum even) that we allow two appeals within a span of 2-5 years, depending on how long the proceedings for the first goes. If the appeals are either not used or aren't successful, then they just drag the inmate out back and put a $0.25 bullet into their heads. (I'm sure the government can actually get bullets cheaper than I can though, so it probably doesn't even cost a quarter to kill someone).

The alternative is hanging, which is probably even more cost effective.

So essentially yes, you are okay with killing even more innocent people than we do now for the sake of money. Brilliant.

The burden of knowing that an innocent was executed should lie on the juror's shoulders. After all, it's actually ridiculously hard for a 'normal' person to be sentenced to death because of the two-tier system. I say 'normal' because the Fed is perfectly willing to point to a random person and claim they have to die in order to make an example of them. (As was the case with Sampson).

But, I've been over the full argument too many times already. So I'm just going to leave you with this article. Just because someone is found to be innocent after the fact doesn't suddenly mean their life is sunshine and rainbows. Their assets have been seized, their connections have been lost, not to mention the fact that not only do they have to list that they're a convicted felon (because even if they were found innocent, they were still convicted), but they have a huge gap in their life where they're lacking any experience or training. Even if the employer could look past the criminal record, the 'innocent' probably doesn't have the qualifications to match any of other applicants. Among many other issues.

There is a reason why the recidivism rate is so high. Once you're convicted of a serious felony, your life is basically over even if you are found to be innocent 10, 20 years down the road. Consider it a mercy killing, because some things just can't be fixed with any amount of social shifts or legislation.

Vegosiux:
I'm starting to wonder how many people on average apply when "executioner" comes up on open job listings. It'd be an interesting thing to know, really.

We used to have civilians do executions. Paid them $100 per kill and their identity was kept entirely anonymous. You'd be surprised at how many people were willing to flip a switch for a nice payout. Hell, I'd do it.

Quaxar:

Kopikatsu:

Godavari:

Due to the lengthy and almost exhaustive appeals process, sending an inmate to death row actually costs more than simply feeding and housing them for the rest of their lives. This is a consequence of trying to ensure that innocent people are not executed. We need the long line of appeals in order to ensure that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" really holds true. And even then, the process isn't perfect; we still execute innocent people. In order to make the death penalty a less expensive option, you'd need to reduce the number of appeals and/or the level of scrutiny they receive, which can only lead to more innocents being wrongly killed. I'd much rather go with the -relatively- less expensive option that ensures innocent people aren't killed for crimes they didn't commit.

Although not mentioned in this thread, I have suggested before (on this forum even) that we allow two appeals within a span of 2-5 years, depending on how long the proceedings for the first goes. If the appeals are either not used or aren't successful, then they just drag the inmate out back and put a $0.25 bullet into their heads. (I'm sure the government can actually get bullets cheaper than I can though, so it probably doesn't even cost a quarter to kill someone).

The alternative is hanging, which is probably even more cost effective.

Brilliant, screw humane methods, let's just save money and suffocate them with a reusable 20c plastic bag!
Especially hanging is about the worst formerly mainstream execution method you could ask for. Rope too short? You're watching a man slowly and painfully suffocating. Too long? Bloody decapitation, yay. And even a proper rope length is no guarantee that it will work as intended.

We have five methods of execution in the US. Electric chair, firing squad, lethal injection, hanging, and gas chamber.

Nine do electric chair, four do gas chamber, three do hanging, and only one does firing squad. For reference.

Also, you're killing them. Complaining that the murder isn't 'humane' enough is hilariously pointless. You can smother them with a pillow for all anyone should care. The point isn't redemption through death, it's just to kill them. It doesn't matter how it's accomplished so long as it's quick, cheap, and efficient. They're certainly not going to be in any position to care once they're dead. It's not like lethal injections are much better, considering if the person administering the drugs misses a vein or something (Which isn't uncommon), it's very...let's just say it's discomforting for both parties.

Kopikatsu:

Quaxar:

Kopikatsu:

Although not mentioned in this thread, I have suggested before (on this forum even) that we allow two appeals within a span of 2-5 years, depending on how long the proceedings for the first goes. If the appeals are either not used or aren't successful, then they just drag the inmate out back and put a $0.25 bullet into their heads. (I'm sure the government can actually get bullets cheaper than I can though, so it probably doesn't even cost a quarter to kill someone).

The alternative is hanging, which is probably even more cost effective.

Brilliant, screw humane methods, let's just save money and suffocate them with a reusable 20c plastic bag!
Especially hanging is about the worst formerly mainstream execution method you could ask for. Rope too short? You're watching a man slowly and painfully suffocating. Too long? Bloody decapitation, yay. And even a proper rope length is no guarantee that it will work as intended.

We have five methods of execution in the US. Electric chair, firing squad, lethal injection, hanging, and gas chamber.

Nine do electric chair, four do gas chamber, three do hanging, and only one does firing squad. For reference.

Also, you're killing them. Complaining that the murder isn't 'humane' enough is hilariously pointless. You can smother them with a pillow for all anyone should care. The point isn't redemption through death, it's just to kill them. It doesn't matter how it's accomplished so long as it's quick, cheap, and efficient. They're certainly not going to be in any position to care once they're dead. It's not like lethal injections are much better, considering if the person administering the drugs misses a vein or something (Which isn't uncommon), it's very...let's just say it's discomforting for both parties.

Huh, you're right. You can actually still get the classic fusillading and hanging. What a hipster method to die.
Still I'd like to point out that there have only been 3 executions through firing squad since the 70s, at least the last two of them specifically requested, hell Ronnie Lee Gardner had to threaten a lawsuit to get shot. And all of these happened in Utah, which amended the lethal injection as sole method in 2004.
Hanging is only still an option in New Hampshire as a backup to injection and Washington as a choice, I don't know where you get the third state from.

So I take it for you it doesn't matter how the death penalty is carried out? Drowning? Disemboweling? The old Goldfinger crotch-laser?
We're not talking about double-sterilizing a needle, a badly executed hanging means sometimes minutes of slow painful suffocating, gas chambers have been called cruel even by the US Appeals Court and electrical chairs, while being quick in theory, are not that simple in practice. Meanwhile lethal injection is basically ODing, simple to control and completely painless. Are you really saying you'd rather torture someone to death because it saves a few bucks, an amount that doesn't even faze the complete annual US Federal Budget?
The average cost for carrying out a death penalty in Kansas is $1,3 million while a single M1 Abrams costs the US Army $4.30 million. If you wanna save costs fine, but don't save a smaller amount by violating human rights.

Quaxar:
Meanwhile lethal injection is basically ODing, simple to control and completely painless.

I would like to point out a potential error here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7269-execution-by-injection-far-from-painless.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=capital-punishment-by-lethal-injection

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/LegalCenter/story?id=2788708&page=1

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/lethal-injection

If lethal injection is meant to be a painless form of death, I would say it's meant to be painless for those watching, not the condemned.

edit: Arguing the DP with Kopi probably won't result in anything but a headache. The guy is in favor of executing death row inmates found innocent 'as a mercy'. I don't think he cares very much about violating human rights, money saved or not.

Jux:

Quaxar:
Meanwhile lethal injection is basically ODing, simple to control and completely painless.

I would like to point out a potential error here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7269-execution-by-injection-far-from-painless.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=capital-punishment-by-lethal-injection

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/LegalCenter/story?id=2788708&page=1

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/lethal-injection

If lethal injection is meant to be a painless form of death, I would say it's meant to be painless for those watching, not the condemned.

edit: Arguing the DP with Kopi probably won't result in anything but a headache. The guy is in favor of executing death row inmates found innocent 'as a mercy'. I don't think he cares very much about violating human rights, money saved or not.

Fair enough, I did not know that dosages were such an issue but no wonder when you let untrained personnel handle it. At least lethal injection has a good potential to execute humanely, not that I'm for it anyway.

And yeah, that "they'll never manage to integrate anyway so just off them" stance is a bit much...

Quaxar:

Kopikatsu:

Quaxar:

Brilliant, screw humane methods, let's just save money and suffocate them with a reusable 20c plastic bag!
Especially hanging is about the worst formerly mainstream execution method you could ask for. Rope too short? You're watching a man slowly and painfully suffocating. Too long? Bloody decapitation, yay. And even a proper rope length is no guarantee that it will work as intended.

We have five methods of execution in the US. Electric chair, firing squad, lethal injection, hanging, and gas chamber.

Nine do electric chair, four do gas chamber, three do hanging, and only one does firing squad. For reference.

Also, you're killing them. Complaining that the murder isn't 'humane' enough is hilariously pointless. You can smother them with a pillow for all anyone should care. The point isn't redemption through death, it's just to kill them. It doesn't matter how it's accomplished so long as it's quick, cheap, and efficient. They're certainly not going to be in any position to care once they're dead. It's not like lethal injections are much better, considering if the person administering the drugs misses a vein or something (Which isn't uncommon), it's very...let's just say it's discomforting for both parties.

Huh, you're right. You can actually still get the classic fusillading and hanging. What a hipster method to die.
Still I'd like to point out that there have only been 3 executions through firing squad since the 70s, at least the last two of them specifically requested, hell Ronnie Lee Gardner had to threaten a lawsuit to get shot. And all of these happened in Utah, which amended the lethal injection as sole method in 2004.
Hanging is only still an option in New Hampshire as a backup to injection and Washington as a choice, I don't know where you get the third state from.

So I take it for you it doesn't matter how the death penalty is carried out? Drowning? Disemboweling? The old Goldfinger crotch-laser?
We're not talking about double-sterilizing a needle, a badly executed hanging means sometimes minutes of slow painful suffocating, gas chambers have been called cruel even by the US Appeals Court and electrical chairs, while being quick in theory, are not that simple in practice. Meanwhile lethal injection is basically ODing, simple to control and completely painless. Are you really saying you'd rather torture someone to death because it saves a few bucks, an amount that doesn't even faze the complete annual US Federal Budget?
The average cost for carrying out a death penalty in Kansas is $1,3 million while a single M1 Abrams costs the US Army $4.30 million. If you wanna save costs fine, but don't save a smaller amount by violating human rights.

I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked