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.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
How about because recent studies from the National Academy of Sciences find that 1 in 25 people on Detah Row are actually innocent.

Do you have any stats on what percent of victims of violent crime are innocent? I bet it's higher than 4%.

 Redbeard wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

Like I said already, you have a better system in place. And that whole "oh well move on" mindset is not a healthy one. These are not eggs to make an omlette.

I never said they were eggs. You guys keep making that analogy. Consider them collateral damage in the war on crime. The goal isn't breakfast, it's to keep society safe from criminals at a low price.

You know who doesn't like the death penalty? It's the for-profit prison system, the so-called "better" system we currently have, that wants to keep as many people as possible locked up for as long as possible, because that's how they make their money. Who foots that bill? We do, the population. You know who lobbies the hardest for repeals to death penalties? It's not the ACLU, it's the prison industry. Follow the money.

We spend far too much on the prison system, because we have too many prisoners. We should focus our attention on rehabilitating those who can be, and get rid of the ones that are hopeless. A system that enforces a death penalty for repeat offenders means you have to be innocent and found guilty at least twice. I'm comfortable with those odds. I'm not comfortable with locking people away for 20+ years on the public dime. Either rehab them, or get rid of them.

Who has the right to determine a human life is useless?

 LordofHats wrote:
I imagine we don't do that cause who wants to be the executioner blowing some guys head open XD

Woah.. THAT could be the punishment for being an ITG.

"Okay, little man, think you're so bad? Here's your stunner, there's your dangerous criminal, helpless and waiting for you to cave his skull before you slit him open and bleed him. C'mon, you said you could do that all day long on that forum you visit. What's wrong?"

It seems like a clean shot to the back of the head at close range would solve all of the problems with errors in the death penalty. The victim doesn't even know they're dead. Completely painless and if you use a .22, not much mess.

I support the death penalty. I feel that if you commit a violent crime in America, especially crimes that would make national news (that takes a lot) the death penalty becomes the most appropriate response to that crime.

Now, I feel that the actual issue for most people is the fact that our justice system sucks so bad, and I agree there. It makes me considerably more hesitant to apply the death penalty to a perpetrator.

Isn't the wording in a guilty verdict basically "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"? I would say that to apply the death penalty it should be 100% certain that the person did something that warranted the death penalty. No doubt whatsoever. We have video of you doing it, a confession on Facebook and your DNA and fingerprints on the murder weapon.

I also support at the very least jail time if you convict an innocent person. That make prosecutors think twice about how they go about their jobs.

But all of the above is just my opinion. I'll admit I'm woefully uninformed on any actual numbers of convictions or any of the sort. That's why I stay out of real debates!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
That this happened in Oklahoma is utterly unsurprising to me.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like a successful execution to me.

Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.

For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.

Reason you don't get shot is that it requires someone to pull the trigger. Don't you currently have a system where two people push buttons but only one of the buttons actually administers the drugs? So the people don't know who actually killed them? Some attempt to limit the conscience and feelings of guilt.

They did something similar for firing squads. 6 guns (or whatever the number is) are pre-loaded and distributed to the executioners. 1 of the guns has a blank loaded, but no one is told which one. That way, they all can think that they had the blank.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Who has the right to determine a human life is useless?

I'm not sure anyone said useless. I believe that any society has a right to determine that an individual's actions are so heinous as to no longer warrant their further inclusion in that society.

 Redbeard wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

so what do you do when your pragmatic quick execution is that of an innocent person?

You feel bad about it and move on. What do you do when you accidentally imprison someone for 30 years?

Perhaps, more importantly, what do you do when you release someone who is not rehabilitated, and they kill someone else?

The recidivism rate of a murderer released from prison lower than the wrongful execution rate in this country.

Pragmatically speaking less innocent people would die if we let convicted murders out of prison and more innocent people have died from executions.

And that is only an argument if we ignore "life in prison" as an option, which anti-death penalty are not arguing about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
How about because recent studies from the National Academy of Sciences find that 1 in 25 people on Detah Row are actually innocent.

Do you have any stats on what percent of victims of violent crime are innocent? I bet it's higher than 4%.

The recidivism rate of murderers is less than 2%, so prison does a better job at not letting innocent people die than executions.

 Redbeard wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Who has the right to determine a human life is useless?

I'm not sure anyone said useless. I believe that any society has a right to determine that an individual's actions are so heinous as to no longer warrant their further inclusion in that society.

You do know that the death penalty is not more cost effective than life imprisonment though, right? It costs more to execute someone than it would to keep them in prison until they die of natural causes.

 Yodhrin wrote:

What right do you have to condemn him for killing a person before killing a person yourselves?

Killing =/= murder

its legal to kill people in combat, self defence, ect... basically the government and society sanction killing in specific circumstances.

Comparing legal execution of someone who has had full due process is not even close to the same thing as murdering someone because you are a slimeball.

Also, the right to kill someone, is gained when they choose to commit an action so heinous that it deserves death. Thats how it is gained, by their actions, they give it away.

That being said, seriously, we have much much MUCH better ways to painlessly kill people then these stupid, and expensive drug cocktails....

As I said before, the "bolt gun" is perfect for this use, and anyone can do the "buttone pushing" job, from anywhere on the planet with an internet connection... if they can find people willing to inject the inmates, they can find people willing to click a mouse.

And again, who has the right to determine what act is so heinous as to warrant the death penalty?

And what about innocent people being executed? How many innocent lives lost to "justice" is too many? I'd argue that a single life is too many as by taking that one life you ruin the lives of their friends, their families, the executioner who flicked the switch, the jury that convicted them.

William Blackstone wrote:It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

This OP sounds almost like a "Law Abiding Citizen" situation... where someone perhaps messed with the chemicals used?

d-usa wrote:
The recidivism rate of a murderer released from prison lower than the wrongful execution rate in this country.

Is this true for all violent crimes?

Pragmatically speaking less innocent people would die if we let convicted murders out of prison and more innocent people have died from executions.

Well, that's not quite true. It ignores the idea that we only allow select convicted murderers out of prison. We don't parole those who appear like they'd do it again, for example.

And, this is also why I have, repeatedly, said that the death penalty should be applied to repeat offenders. If we're doing such a good job at rehabbing our murderers, that's great, and this won't be necessary very often (2% you say).

A Town Called Malus wrote:
You do know that the death penalty is not more cost effective than life imprisonment though, right? It costs more to execute someone than it would to keep them in prison until they die of natural causes.

That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.

 Redbeard wrote:

That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.

So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned either by a hard limit or by pricing them out via lawyer fees. Doesn't sound like justice to me.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.

So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.

Cost should never be a factor in capital crimes.

We do need to address the whole for-profit model... but, that's a different topic.

To OP: I have no sympathy whatsoever... but, I'd reinstitute either firing squads or if death penalty isn't an option, chain gangs/forced labor.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.

It does if the one party is appealing for appeals sake. In some of these cases, how is it that ANYONE could come up with "new" evidence after 15, 20 or 30+ years? I think that the instances of newer technology (like DNA) being used to solve or reverse convictions is extremely rare and that most police agencies will have done their jobs properly the first time.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.

So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.

You know, it worked for 100 years. There's little reason to believe that more appeals leads to different results. Again, follow the money. Who benefits from requiring a lot of drawn-out appeals? Defense attorneys and the prison industry. Do you really believe these requirements were put in place out of some sense of honor or justice? Throughout history, very little has ever been accomplished solely for just causes. It's economics that drive change. The guy running the prison says that it's unjust to execute someone without hearing their case a dozen times, but he's saying it because he has beds that need filling if he's going to turn a profit.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.

It does if the one party is appealing for appeals sake. In some of these cases, how is it that ANYONE could come up with "new" evidence after 15, 20 or 30+ years? I think that the instances of newer technology (like DNA) being used to solve or reverse convictions is extremely rare and that most police agencies will have done their jobs properly the first time.

There have been a lot of cases over here solved by new methods of finding DNA evidence. Several cold cases have been solved after many years (even up to 30, I think).

It's not about police agencies not doing their jobs, it's about them not having the tools to do the job at the time so they, after being pressured to come up with results, charge whoever seems to have the most circumstantial evidence against them. Then it's up to the defendant to have a decent lawyer to show that the evidence is circumstantial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12396506
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/21/crimewatch-first-case-solved-26-years
http://www.dna-worldwide.com/academy/news/2013/09/29/the-cold-cases-that-were-solved-by-modern-dna-evidence/

There's a selection of cold cases solved many years after they were committed thanks to DNA evidence. There were a lot more from a simple google search but you get the drift.

Are any death-row prisons privately run?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

There have been a lot of cases over here solved by new methods of finding DNA evidence. Several cold cases have been solved after many years (even up to 30, I think).

So what do you do in these cases? Say, sorry we kept you in a tiny box for 30 years? Oh, but we didn't kill him, so it's all good. Pat on the back and move on with your life, such as it may be after 30 years of imprisonment? Does anyone ask the convicted what they want? Probably not, because as others have noted, there's that whole revenge aspect. I know that, were I to ever be convicted of murder, I'd rather be executed than spend 30 years in a cell.

But the guy who owns the prison has his profit to think about...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are any death-row prisons privately run?

If there is no death penalty, there is no call for a death row prison...

 LordofHats wrote:
I imagine we don't do that cause who wants to be the executioner blowing some guys head open XD

Simple solution. Five people with rifles. Only a random number have live ammo. That way no one knows who took the fatal shot.

I oppose hanging on a PR basis on giving ammunition for cries of "modern day lynching"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Who has the right to determine a human life is useless?

Let's see; in this instant case a four time felon with a litany of crimes including robbery, kidnapping, rape, and murder. One victim was shot and then buried alive. By any objective definition this was not a productive member of society, and was pretty useless

 Redbeard wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are any death-row prisons privately run?

If there is no death penalty, there is no call for a death row prison...

The argument was that the appeals are there in order to profit the prison owners.

So I was wondering if there are any for-profit private prisons that have a death row.

You know, to see if that argument even makes sense.

Oklahoma's death row is in a state run prison, and federal death row is part of the BOP.

I don't know about the other 49 states.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I imagine we don't do that cause who wants to be the executioner blowing some guys head open XD

Simple solution. Five people with rifles. Only a random number have live ammo. That way no one knows who took the fatal shot.

How about we just stop using the death penalty? Seems the simplest option to me.

 d-usa wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are any death-row prisons privately run?

If there is no death penalty, there is no call for a death row prison...

The argument was that the appeals are there in order to profit the prison owners.

No. The argument was put forth that the appeal system is there to profit the lawyers. The prison owners are lobbying to repeal death penalties altogether. Of course, prolonged appeal process do indirectly benefit prison owners as well, as while the death row inmates may be sent to state or federal penitentiaries, the known cost of a death sentence may result in more convicts receiving lengthy, or permanent, prison terms instead of death.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How about we just stop using the death penalty? Seems the simplest option to me.

We could just stop arresting people and disband the police. That's pretty simple, too.

 kronk wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How about we just stop using the death penalty? Seems the simplest option to me.

We could just stop arresting people and disband the police. That's pretty simple, too.

Yes, but not feasible. I'm not sure how that is an argument. Just putting people on life without parole can be substituted for the death penalty.

Taking the easy way out isn't always the best way out.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How about we just stop using the death penalty? Seems the simplest option to me.

Even simpler - how about people don't rape and murder others

 kronk wrote:
Taking the easy way out isn't always the best way out.

How is this the easy way out? The death penalty does not stop crime any more than life without parole. And the death penalty has no take-backs, if an innocent person is executed there is no way to go back, if they are sentenced to life without parole and are proven innocent, they they are freed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How about we just stop using the death penalty? Seems the simplest option to me.

Even simpler - how about people don't rape and murder others

What do you mean by that? Abolishing the death penalty will not cause crime to go up and is much less likely to permanently harm an innocent person.

Penal Units.....