Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In theory yes. The problem is every country has limited resources, and it costs a lot of money to keep someone for life. The question is where do you draw the line?

 Torga_DW wrote:
In theory yes. The problem is every country has limited resources, and it costs a lot of money to keep someone for life. The question is where do you draw the line?

Except that in a lot of cases life imprisonment turns out to be cheaper.

Not to condone or condemn executions, but how much is that due to government regulations and associated costs? They used to do it with a noose, then the french invented the guillotine.

Again, not trying to take a side on the issue here, just trying to define it.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Not to condone or condemn executions, but how much is that due to government regulations and associated costs? They used to do it with a noose, then the french invented the guillotine.

Again, not trying to take a side on the issue here, just trying to define it.

A lot of it is due to appeals, I think. Those facing the death penalty are much more likely to appeal than those facing a life sentence. I mean, they have absolutely nothing to lose by appealing so why not?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

Wait... wut?

Guantanemo (torture and indefinite detention without trial, or even formal charges) and death penalty (with huge wait on Death Row), probably more but those were two which came off the top of my head.

I started out as an ardent supporter of the death penalty, but conversations with d-usa have made me less so, and incidents like this, if regularly repeated, would put me square in the opposition camp:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/01/arizona-inmate-injected-15-times-records-show/13498865/

The death penalty is a lot easier to defend than indefinite incarceration and torture in offshore prisons.

Props to the US though, they do go ahead and publish a report about it. Plenty of governments would try to cover something like that up completely.

Relapse wrote:


I started out as an ardent supporter of the death penalty, but conversations with d-usa have made me less so, and incidents like this, if regularly repeated, would put me square in the opposition camp:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/01/arizona-inmate-injected-15-times-records-show/13498865/

Yeah, that kind of thing is horrendous. You often don't have fully trained medical doctors performing the injection (goes against their oaths etc.) so this kind of thing will happen.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Not to condone or condemn executions, but how much is that due to government regulations and associated costs? They used to do it with a noose, then the french invented the guillotine.

Again, not trying to take a side on the issue here, just trying to define it.

Its expensive because of the unlimited appeals and regulations and redtape. Execution should be cheaper than life imprisonment, but its not because we have far too much procedure available.

It shouldn't cost any more than the time to house the inmate for a few years and then the cost of a deer slug.


But thats not a problem with the Death Penalty, its a problem with how our justice system is organized.

 Torga_DW wrote:
With enough time and resources put into it, cuba could be the next iraq.

This is probably, in my opinion, the high point of the thread.

One can only hope, my friend.

 whembly wrote:

Cuba has no free speech. No free assembly. No independent political parties. No hint of free elections. Dissidents are jailed or worst.

Again, why should the US care? After all it was more than happy to support Batista, who was significantly worse, though at least in that instance there was a clear geopolitical reason.

 whembly wrote:

Sure we may get a few folks back... but, keep in mind that human rights groups (ie, Amnesty Int.) estimates that over 8,000 prisoners of conscience incarcerated in Cuba.

I don't think the US gets to call foul on prisoner retention in Cuba.

 whembly wrote:

IF we are to normalize relations, get rid of the embargo, setup embassies... Cuba must reciprocate something major. Unlike what happened in Vietnam or China, Cuba has not undertaken any similar reforms in either its external behavior or its internal political and economic structure.

In the Vietnam case the US, primarily, wanted its POWs back; the rest was window dressing. In the China case the US simply wanted to establish relations with China as it finally realized it didn't like the USSR either.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Cuba has no free speech. No free assembly. No independent political parties. No hint of free elections. Dissidents are jailed or worst.

Again, why should the US care? After all it was more than happy to support Batista, who was significantly worse, though at least in that instance there was a clear geopolitical reason.

I just don't the we should just "give away the store" here.

 whembly wrote:

Sure we may get a few folks back... but, keep in mind that human rights groups (ie, Amnesty Int.) estimates that over 8,000 prisoners of conscience incarcerated in Cuba.

I don't think the US gets to call foul on prisoner retention in Cuba.

So we should needlessly turn a blind eye... gotcha.

 whembly wrote:

IF we are to normalize relations, get rid of the embargo, setup embassies... Cuba must reciprocate something major. Unlike what happened in Vietnam or China, Cuba has not undertaken any similar reforms in either its external behavior or its internal political and economic structure.

In the Vietnam case the US, primarily, wanted its POWs back; the rest was window dressing. In the China case the US simply wanted to establish relations with China as it finally realized it didn't like the USSR either.

Yup.

 whembly wrote:

I just don't the we should just "give away the store" here.

You didn't answer the question.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I just don't the we should just "give away the store" here.

You didn't answer the question.

O.o... thought I did. Go back several pages.

Oh... and who's the real "Party of No™" again?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/white-house-issues-veto-threat-keystone-xl-pipeline-28032431

 Ouze wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
With enough time and resources put into it, cuba could be the next iraq.

This is probably, in my opinion, the high point of the thread.

One can only hope, my friend.

Damn....a Logistical FOB on Key West. FOB around Cuba. I be so in on being a Movement Contractor.

John Stossel ✔ @FBNStossel
Follow
Obama translation #SOTU
8:21 PM - 20 Jan 2015

I regret that I have but one Like to give to that post.

-some guy on the internet

 whembly wrote:

Except illegal immigrants. We'll make up new rules for them

 whembly wrote:

So when it goes horribly wrong I'm not the only one to blame

 whembly wrote:

Even though you turned against my party massively in the Mid-Terms