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.

Hope none of these guys get to anyone's neighborhood here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33340592/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

They should take away good behavior credits. Either give someone a goddamm sentence or don't

They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Hmm. It seems like this would be less of a problem if 80 years meant 80 years. And not actually as little as 40.

Relapse wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Really? The problem is that we didn't kill them and not the fact that there was a loophole in the laws? That's what you are arguing?

Unbelievable.

There are many arguments both for and against the death penalties use as a deterant to criminals, however I think that we can all agree that the death penalty certainly prohibits scum like this being capable of re-offending. If it is decided that someone is too dangerous to ever be considered for release, then surely it is A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

Ozymandias wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Really? The problem is that we didn't kill them and not the fact that there was a loophole in the laws? That's what you are arguing?

Unbelievable.

For killing someone you get punished by being....killed. WTF

That's essentially my problem with the death penalty.

What's the penalty for kidnapping?

squilverine wrote: A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

So we should kill then to save $$ ??

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. It seems like this would be less of a problem if 80 years meant 80 years. And not actually as little as 40.

Agreed.

I used to be for the death sentence until I found out that it was more expensive than keeping them locked up. 80 years sounds about right. That'd make them 98+ when they get out, If they commit crimes at that age they should get a medal.

squilverine wrote:There are many arguments both for and against the death penalties use as a deterant to criminals, however I think that we can all agree that the death penalty certainly prohibits scum like this being capable of re-offending. If it is decided that someone is too dangerous to ever be considered for release, then surely it is A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

Exactly my point. If a person is executed, they are no longer a danger. A few years back Utah executed the last of what were called the "High Fi Killers". These guys went into a sterio shop, tortured and raped the people there and finally murdered them. Among other things they kicked a pen into a victim's ear and forced them to drink Drano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_Murders

When the last one was executed years later, the usual mob of anti death peanlty people showed up with one of the crew, with a big smile, even thanking the murderers for bringing them all together. I can't help but think the self righteous smile would be off his face if they'd been released into his neighborhood.
Not one word was mentioned about the victims by the crowd in all this.
I admit this is an extreme case and I don't believe all people should be executed, especially if there is any doubt about guilt, but people like these guys with firm evidence against them should be shot like dogs. It's cheaper than keeping them around and safer than risking them escaping jail.

lol are you complaining about an 80 life sentence? Here life is 16 years and a murder usually gives like 8-12 (a guy got 4 about a year ago, but it was apealed and changed to 6)

Relapse wrote:
Exactly my point. If a person is executed, they are no longer a danger. A few years back Utah executed the last of what were called the "High Fi Killers". These guys went into a sterio shop, tortured and raped the people there and finally murdered them. Among other things they kicked a pen into a victim's ear and forced them to drink Drano.

They're no longer a threat in the event of a life, or something like 200 year, sentence either.

Relapse wrote:
Not one word was mentioned about the victims by the crowd in all this.

Why should they be mentioned? They're dead, they don't care. Talking about the victims is just a convenient cover for personal catharsis.

Relapse wrote:
I admit this is an extreme case and I don't believe all people should be executed, especially if there is any doubt about guilt, but people like these guys with firm evidence against them should be shot like dogs.

The problem is that you must draw up a regulation which defines what 'firm evidence' is, such that the regulation cannot be exploited by an overly gung-ho judicial system. Just look at the variance, even from state to state, when considering what constitutes 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Exactly my point. If a person is executed, they are no longer a danger. A few years back Utah executed the last of what were called the "High Fi Killers". These guys went into a sterio shop, tortured and raped the people there and finally murdered them. Among other things they kicked a pen into a victim's ear and forced them to drink Drano.

They're no longer a threat in the event of a life, or something like 200 year, sentence either.

They are if there's even the slightest chance they can escape.

Relapse wrote:
Not one word was mentioned about the victims by the crowd in all this.

Why should they be mentioned? They're dead, they don't care. Talking about the victims is just a convenient cover for personal catharsis.

It's just that people like these seem to always gloss over that these guys face death for a reason.

Relapse wrote:
I admit this is an extreme case and I don't believe all people should be executed, especially if there is any doubt about guilt, but people like these guys with firm evidence against them should be shot like dogs.

The problem is that you must draw up a regulation which defines what 'firm evidence' is, such that the regulation cannot be exploited by an overly gung-ho judicial system. Just look at the variance, even from state to state, when considering what constitutes 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

If someone is dead caught to rights with totaly irrefutable evidence that even someone with one eye and a spoonful of brains can use to see guilt, then I think they should be put down.

This story illustrates the dead to rights point and why these people should be shot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33093144/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Lord-Loss wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Really? The problem is that we didn't kill them and not the fact that there was a loophole in the laws? That's what you are arguing?

Unbelievable.

For killing someone you get punished by being....killed. WTF

...
You don't understand the idea behind the death penalty if you think that it's "you get killed for killing someone".

The idea behind the death penalty is a very, very simple one:

You took a life. You violated one of the most widely recognized rules of societies everywhere. You didn't take a life to protect your country, your community, your home, your family, your friends or yourself.

You took that life for your own damned reasons.
And do you really think they just give the death penalty for fun? They deliberate over allowing it. It requires a VERY specific set of circumstances for it to even be on the table.

But therein lies the problem now. Punishing some two bit gangbanger who lived below the poverty line with jailtime? Hell. He ends up with a BETTER life in prison than he did outside of it. And if he flips on his gang? More perks in his new, closed life.
Frankly, this is ridiculous that it happened. I'm glad Perdue thinks so too, here's hoping she does something about it.
I had to study some of these cases not too long ago, and some of it is downright despicable.

As far as I'm aware only Tx and Florida seem to hand out executions like candy. Makes me wonder how soon until their supply of life-taking drugs runs out.

I've read somewhere it costs tax payers on average $100k a year per inmate that is held in a max-security prison. So, over a period of 80 years it will cost taxpayers $8M dollars so some douche who raped 3 little girls can have the right to live to the ripe old age of 98 (and frankly, he won't live that long anyway most likely just because of what he did).

I'm pretty sure it's a lot less than $8M to pump 2 drugs into someones body; a painkiller and then the actual euthanizer.

Yet, it would cost hardly anything to reinstate firing squads.

Friggin' international community forbidding it.

Kanluwen wrote:Yet, it would cost hardly anything to reinstate firing squads.

Friggin' international community forbidding it.

Hanging is cheapest yet. Rope is pennies a foot.

Yeah, but bullets get the job done quicker No chance of people arguing "cruel and unusual punishment"!

Gotta know how to hang and make sure the rope isn't too long. Put the knot at back of the neck all you'll do is choke them to death, put it to the side and 99% of the time the neck will snap killing the person.

If they survive then you shoot them. Saves on ammo because the same rope can be used for a long time over and over.

Or we can always start in with creativity.

I say we utilize helicopters. And dogs. Everyone loves dogs!

I say we lock them in a 8X8 shed and make them listen to boy band music for a straight 96 hours and then make them watch Brady Bunch for the rest of the week. Alternate back and forth until they die from brain hemorrhage.

I've always said we need to use some of the smaller islands to convert them into arenas for large scale deathmatches for prisoners.

And have it sold on pay per view, with the profits going to the victims of the prisoners.

Good idea. Would give me something to shoot at other than deer and drug dealers.

squilverine wrote:There are many arguments both for and against the death penalties use as a deterant to criminals, however I think that we can all agree that the death penalty certainly prohibits scum like this being capable of re-offending. If it is decided that someone is too dangerous to ever be considered for release, then surely it is A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

This is basically my position. On the issue of the death penalty being more costly then prison life-cycle expenses, then clearly we need to switch to a cheaper method of execution.

1. Have other inmates dig graves outside.
2. Take death penalty guy out to grave.
3. Hit him in the back/top of the head with the edge of the shovel. He should fall into one of the graves.
4. Have the inmates fill in the hole.


Should cost about $5 for the reusable shovel, and make the inmates count their blessings for only being in there for burglary.

You are confused Noble. You are backwards. We are saying keeping them locked up for 80 years is more costly than execution. None of the methods of execution costs millions of dollars. I'm guessing injection is the costliest but I'm sure even that is maybe $100k tops per inmate vs $8M over 80 years.

Fateweaver wrote:You are confused Noble. You are backwards. We are saying keeping them locked up for 80 years is more costly than execution. None of the methods of execution costs millions of dollars. I'm guessing injection is the costliest but I'm sure even that is maybe $100k tops per inmate vs $8M over 80 years.

Still, $5 vs $100,000 is an improvement regardless of the other factors. The biggest expense of death row is the lengthy approval and appeals process, which on a per-prisoner basis is FAR more expensive than "normal" life imprisonment (see below). Which says to me that we should just limit the appeals process for executions to <5 years (or something), with those cases being given highest priority so they don't have to wait in the backlogged bureaucracy for ages. This way they still have the opportunity to appeal but we retain the ability to store and eliminate them in a tax-dollar efficient manner.


The High Cost of the Death Penalty
Costs of the Death Penalty

Yeah, although I think that happens more with States that are more liberal minded. Florida and Texas hand out executions so rapidly I don't think the prisoners even have time for their 15 minute phone call.

Okay a slight exaggeration.

I also see what you say Noble. The cheapest way is to just fill a boat full, take them about 1/4mile off the coast into the ocean, cover them with fresh animal blood and parts and then toss them overboard. Butchers would give the blood up free so the only expense would be the cost of fuel to take a boat that holds about 12 people 1/4 mile out into the ocean and back.