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.

 cincydooley wrote:

Some info here.
Basically, because of the lengthy legal process required to 'ensure there's no false excutions' (stop laughing back there) it costs a lot more to go through the process of executing somone than it would to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

You know, it's instances like this where we just need some Megacity One Judges.

Seriously. Dude is unequivocally guilty. Put the fether down. A 9mm round costs around 24 cents.

Except you don't know the first thing about the case, so you aren't in a position the say that he is 'unequivocally' guilty. What if turns out that someone spiked his drink with loads of LSD for a joke, or he was sleep walking (driving). As unlikely as that might sound things like that absolutely do happen from time to time** in a world of billions. Which is why it is a pretty important rule that everyone gets a fair trial, no matter how cut and dry the case appears to be. Which brings us back to square one: a lengthy legal process.

I don't like any more than you do, when the guy is clearly just a scumbag, but it's cases like these when it is most important to follow the due process. It is all too easy to have knee jerk reaction and say lets execute this guy, and no one would disagree. But then a precedent is set. We execute people for this type of crime. But the next case might not be so clear.

**Currently in the news

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think he meant the shanking and gang rape.


I still support the rope though, and Fraz hasn't answered my damn question!! Grrr. Lol

They don't do hangings in Texas.

<--- Lived there for 15 years.

This is a fairly interesting documentary on various forms of the death penalty that was broadcast on the BBC a while ago.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
that plus multiple murder.

Fraz, is hanging still an option in Texas? Seriously, it may need to be reinstated if it isn't.

No just the needle.

I thought they hit you with a brick and that was that.

 Soladrin wrote:
I thought they hit you with a brick and that was that.

That's Mississippi.

 kronk wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
I thought they hit you with a brick and that was that.

That's Mississippi.

Thats how you get a date in Mississippii.

 Smacks wrote:

Except you don't know the first thing about the case, so you aren't in a position the say that he is 'unequivocally' guilty.

I disagree.

What if turns out that someone spiked his drink with loads of LSD for a joke, or he was sleep walking (driving). As unlikely as that might sound things like that absolutely do happen from time to time** in a world of billions.

None of which changes the fact that he evaded police for multiple blocks and ran through a fething crowd of people.

Which is why it is a pretty important rule that everyone gets a fair trial, no matter how cut and dry the case appears to be. Which brings us back to square one: a lengthy legal process.

I don't like any more than you do, when the guy is clearly just a scumbag, but it's cases like these when it is most important to follow the due process. It is all too easy to have knee jerk reaction and say lets execute this guy, and no one would disagree. But then a precedent is set. We execute people for this type of crime. But the next case might not be so clear.

**Currently in the news

I understand and don't disagree with a lot of that, but to me this is a 'smoking gun in hand' situation. Hell, the situation would have been better had they shot the fether instead of tazed him.

 cincydooley wrote:
I understand and don't disagree with a lot of that, but to me this is a 'smoking gun in hand' situation. Hell, the situation would have been better had they shot the fether instead of tazed him.

Yeah... I understand completely where you're coming from. The more I read about this, the more it annoys me. Apparently the guy has a previous DUI, and was driving a stolen car. He certainly 'sounds' like a perfect candidate for your Judge Dredd style bullet in the head idea.

But realistically, giving police the power to commit summary executions is never going to end well. Especially considering how many people they already gun down in the name of 'self defense'.

Also there are legitimate reasons why someone might not be responsible for their actions, or have diminished responsibility (In cases where there is duress for example). So even the 'smoking gun' situation should really go to court. Even if it is only to open, shut and throw the book. Then there should really be some system to appeal, to ensure everything was done properly.

If you fallow it all through to the logical conclusion, you are probably going to end up with the system that is already in place. If you try to streamline it in order to make it easier to execute guys like this, you will inevitably make it easier to execute innocent people by mistake.

Personally I think the risks outweigh the rewards on that one. It doesn't matter to me if he dies, or rots in a cell. All I would really be concerned about is making sure that he isn't able to hurt anyone else ever again.

Execution doesn't do anything for society except satisfy bloodthirsty revenge-hungry people that don't even have anything to do with the reason why they think another human being should die. How many of the people in this thread have actually been impacted by this guy? How many people in this thread are wanting to put a bullet in his head or watch him hang for something that didn't impact them one single bit. A random dog taking a crap in your front yard has a bigger impact than this incident but here you are having a rage boner for death.

The Death Penalty doesn't save money. The death penalty doesn't deter people from committing crimes. The percentage of people that have potentially been wrongfully executed is actually higher than the percentage of people that have been released and killed again, so we are more likely to kill an innocent man by keeping the death penalty. There is no practical reason to keep it alive and all argument for the death penalty have been thoroughly debunked.

The only reason we keep the death penalty around is to satisfy revenge fantasies and blood lust. Like we see in this thread: "Hey there, I don't know you. Nothing you ever did impacts my life in any way. But I think you should die."

I love you d-usa.

 daedalus wrote:
Oh good the torture fantasies have kicked off.

Violating a Music festival? Skin the b*****d alive and place him in a gibbet in the town centre.
Cheap and effective.

There goes the creepy comments again...

You guys are being to hard, it is obvious he had no boundries as a kid and is not accountable.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You guys are being to hard, it is obvious he had no boundries as a kid and is not accountable.

Funny! But If you actually could go back in time and give him more boundaries (or generally raise him a bit better) so that this might never happen... Why on Earth would you not do that?

Ultra conservatives get so caught up in the whole "justice for the victim's family". They forget what families really want, more than anything, is for their loved ones to not be dead in the first place. When the damage is already done, then there are no winners. It's just a pointless waste of life, which no amount of justice can undo.

I guarantee you: there is a kid crawling around in diaper right now, who is going to grow up, and do something that will make this look positively wholesome. And not just one, probably hundreds.

What do you think is the best course of action? Should we just wait for these kids to go bad and destroy peoples lives? So that we can argue over whether execution or life in prison is a bigger waste of tax payers money. Or should we do everything we can to keep them on the right track, and give them an alternative path in life that doesn't inevitably end in tragedy? That is the crux of the liberal argument not "criminals need a hug".

You didnt get the refrence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

I guarantee you: there is a kid crawling around in diaper right now, who is going to grow up, and do something that will make this look positively wholesome. And not just one, probably hundreds.
.

There is also a baby in a diaper that will be the next hitler

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
There is also a baby in a diaper that will be the next hitler

Is it you? Because I'd really feel like my time here was being better spent if you proceeded on to world domination.

Dude, you just didnt get the joke.

Execution doesn't do anything for society except Totally remove any possibility of someone doing that <CENSORED> again

Fixed. In this particular case, dude has apparently gotten a DUI previous to this incident, and then did it again and wound up killing some people. While I don't think the state should have the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn't under darn near any circumstances...he won't be doing it a third time if they shoot his neck full of draino. I mean, if you can point me to some examples of a repeat offense post-execution I am all ears...

How many people in this thread are wanting to put a bullet in his head or watch him hang for something that didn't impact them one single bit.

The solution in criminal matters is clearly to have the injured party(ies) and/or their families make up the jury box, and we can hand one a gavel. After all, it's wrong to advocate bad things happening to people unless they PERSONALLY IMPACT *YOU*.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dude, you just didnt get the joke.

I did start my post with the word "Funny!", and I don't see how it is for you to know my mind, or what I do and do not 'get'. If it really is just impossible for other people to guess which, of any number of recent news stories and discussions you might be egocentrically referencing, then maybe you could articulate it better.

 d-usa wrote:
The death penalty doesn't deter people from committing crimes.

Serious question: Is there research that shows that prison, or the possibility of life in prison deters people from committing crimes?

 d-usa wrote:
Execution doesn't do anything for society except satisfy bloodthirsty revenge-hungry people that don't even have anything to do with the reason why they think another human being should die. How many of the people in this thread have actually been impacted by this guy? How many people in this thread are wanting to put a bullet in his head or watch him hang for something that didn't impact them one single bit. A random dog taking a crap in your front yard has a bigger impact than this incident but here you are having a rage boner for death.

The Death Penalty doesn't save money. The death penalty doesn't deter people from committing crimes. The percentage of people that have potentially been wrongfully executed is actually higher than the percentage of people that have been released and killed again, so we are more likely to kill an innocent man by keeping the death penalty. There is no practical reason to keep it alive and all argument for the death penalty have been thoroughly debunked.

The only reason we keep the death penalty around is to satisfy revenge fantasies and blood lust. Like we see in this thread: "Hey there, I don't know you. Nothing you ever did impacts my life in any way. But I think you should die."

Is it wrong to also apply the 'doesn't impact me' logic to incidents like Newtown, Boston, etc?

 SOFDC wrote:

Execution doesn't do anything for society except Totally remove any possibility of someone doing that <CENSORED> again

Fixed. In this particular case, dude has apparently gotten a DUI previous to this incident, and then did it again and wound up killing some people. While I don't think the state should have the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn't under darn near any circumstances...he won't be doing it a third time if they shoot his neck full of draino. I mean, if you can point me to some examples of a repeat offense post-execution I am all ears...

You might have already had too much draino in your system if you make a stupid argument that pretents that killing somebody is the only way to keep them off the street.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Execution doesn't do anything for society except satisfy bloodthirsty revenge-hungry people that don't even have anything to do with the reason why they think another human being should die. How many of the people in this thread have actually been impacted by this guy? How many people in this thread are wanting to put a bullet in his head or watch him hang for something that didn't impact them one single bit. A random dog taking a crap in your front yard has a bigger impact than this incident but here you are having a rage boner for death.

The Death Penalty doesn't save money. The death penalty doesn't deter people from committing crimes. The percentage of people that have potentially been wrongfully executed is actually higher than the percentage of people that have been released and killed again, so we are more likely to kill an innocent man by keeping the death penalty. There is no practical reason to keep it alive and all argument for the death penalty have been thoroughly debunked.

The only reason we keep the death penalty around is to satisfy revenge fantasies and blood lust. Like we see in this thread: "Hey there, I don't know you. Nothing you ever did impacts my life in any way. But I think you should die."

Is it wrong to also apply the 'doesn't impact me' logic to incidents like Newtown, Boston, etc?

For me, yes. Just because we feel bad because we see things on TV doesn't mean it "impacted us". And even if it did, then the following fact is still true: Execution serves no purpose other than revenge. It doesn't prevent any crime.

Unless somebody forgot to tell these people that we have the death penalty. Maybe none of those horrible things would have happened if somebody told them that we have capital punishment...

 timetowaste85 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


FYI: Due to laws in Texas, he is up for the death penalty. Driving down a crowded street and running people over is pretty strong justification...

So, Texas still allows public hangings, right? String him up in the town square.

Tie him behind a car and drag him around a track?

 Hordini wrote:
Serious question: Is there research that shows that prison, or the possibility of life in prison deters people from committing crimes?

I would suggest that it is somewhat self-evident that it doesn't (or at least not enough). If it really did act as a deterrent then it would follow that prisons would be empty; yet Instead we see them overpopulated.

If you look back through history to times when people could be hanged for stupid stuff, like 'stealing a loaf of bread', you will find there are lots of records of people being hanged for just that. Which shows that even the harshest penalties don't seem to deter crime.

My own opinion on this is that criminals just don't expect to get caught. Either because they are very clever and really don't get caught, or very stupid and just didn't think things through. The later seem to outnumber the former by quite a margin, and are probably a greater burden on society. Which makes me think that making people smarter might lead to less crime overall.

It would certainly be interesting to know what percentage of 'honest' people, are kept honest by the threat of punishment, and not just because they are inherently nicer people. But I think you start to get into cultural morality then, which is really subjective. If there are no negative consequences for actions, then it might follow that those actions are socially acceptable and therefore morally acceptable. While we see stealing as wrong, a different hypothetical culture might view it as totally fair.

EDIT:

I just thought of an example: Homosexuality used to be illegal. At the time homosexuals were widely considered morally reprehensible, and could be sent to prison for it. However, since homosexuality has been decriminalized our cultural morality has slowly shifted towards acceptance. A person can now be 'good', and also gay.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The death penalty doesn't deter people from committing crimes.

Serious question: Is there research that shows that prison, or the possibility of life in prison deters people from committing crimes?

Yes, it's quite authoritatively supported by the research.

This website has a lot of information on the issues.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

According to their figures, states that use the death penalty have consistently higher murder rates. I'm not sure if that proves anything, since those states might have higher murder rates regardless. But I thought it was interesting that Kansas had reinstated the death penalty as recently as 1994. So I went to look at murder rates for Kansas to see if there was any noticeable drop, but actually murder rates seem to have gone up since they reinstated the death penalty.

Again, I don't really feel these statistics prove much either way. Kansas might have reinstated the death penalty as a reaction to deteriorating social conditions. Which would account for the peak in murder rates following its reintroduction. I would be surprised if the death penalty really did cause higher murder rates. Though it isn't inconceivable that criminals might opt to kill witnesses more frequently in states where the punishments are more severe.

 Smacks wrote:
This website has a lot of information on the issues.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

According to their figures, states that use the death penalty have consistently higher murder rates. I'm not sure if that proves anything, since those states might have higher murder rates regardless. But I thought it was interesting that Kansas had reinstated the death penalty as recently as 1994. So I went to look at murder rates for Kansas to see if there was any noticeable drop, but actually murder rates seem to have gone up since they reinstated the death penalty.

Again, I don't really feel these statistics prove much either way. Kansas might have reinstated the death penalty as a reaction to deteriorating social conditions. Which would account for the peak in murder rates following its reintroduction. I would be surprised if the death penalty really did cause higher murder rates. Though it isn't inconceivable that criminals might opt to kill witnesses more frequently in states where the punishments are more severe.

As many are often wont to point out with gun issues... correlation does not equal causation.

I can't say whether or not it does deter crime, or even if it is meant to. I'm curious if the Supreme Court has ever given an opinion on the matter.

If you look worldwide, there are states with the death penalty with high crime rates and states with the death penalty with low crime rates. There are states without the death penalty with high crime rates, and states without the death penalty with low crime rates.

It is clear that crime is a complex social phenomenon and cannot be easily wished away by any simple method.

 Smacks wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dude, you just didnt get the joke.

I did start my post with the word "Funny!", and I don't see how it is for you to know my mind, or what I do and do not 'get'. If it really is just impossible for other people to guess which, of any number of recent news stories and discussions you might be egocentrically referencing, then maybe you could articulate it better.

Google "affluenza", anyone who did not get the reference.