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.

 Jihadin wrote:
Penal Units.....

Heh. You said penal.

Where would we send theses Penal units and who is going to give them a gun?

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

The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

Do you know how much it costs to imprison someone for a year? For life? (Or, in the current system, to execute them).

You have to realize that almost everything about our (US) correctional system is done with a profit motive. Prisons are run as profit centers for their owners, while we, the public, pay for it. It costs 1-2 million for a life imprisonment sentence. It costs as much to execute someone, with the money going to the attorneys. The public loses in both cases.

Frank Zimring, JD, William G. Simon Professor of Law and Wolfen Distinguished Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley, as quoted in a Mar. 6, 2005 Los Angeles Times article titled "Death Row Often Means a Long Life; California Condemns Many Murderers, But Few Are Ever Executed," stated:
"What we are paying for at such great cost is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides."

The only way to reduce the costs is to have a capital punishment system that doesn't reward lawyers. One that accepts that the occasional mistake may happen, but that the public good of such a system is preferable to the public costs borne by either life in prison or limitless appeals. As I stated before, I also believe that a timely execution is far more humane than a lengthy incarceration with no hope of life outside of a cell. We seem so preoccupied with the question of life or death, and never consider the question of quality of life.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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

The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.

Nah. With the appeals and entire process, it's pretty tough for the Feds to actually kill someone. It's much easier to get 12 strangers to say "Life" than "Death".

 kronk wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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

The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.

Nah. With the appeals and entire process, it's pretty tough for the Feds to actually kill someone. It's much easier to get 12 strangers to say "Life" than "Death".

Unless you have Henry Fonda, 12 Angry Men says otherwise

 Redbeard wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

Do you know how much it costs to imprison someone for a year? For life? (Or, in the current system, to execute them).

You have to realize that almost everything about our (US) correctional system is done with a profit motive. Prisons are run as profit centers for their owners, while we, the public, pay for it. It costs 1-2 million for a life imprisonment sentence. It costs as much to execute someone, with the money going to the attorneys. The public loses in both cases.

Frank Zimring, JD, William G. Simon Professor of Law and Wolfen Distinguished Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley, as quoted in a Mar. 6, 2005 Los Angeles Times article titled "Death Row Often Means a Long Life; California Condemns Many Murderers, But Few Are Ever Executed," stated:
"What we are paying for at such great cost is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides."

The only way to reduce the costs is to have a capital punishment system that doesn't reward lawyers. One that accepts that the occasional mistake may happen, but that the public good of such a system is preferable to the public costs borne by either life in prison or limitless appeals. As I stated before, I also believe that a timely execution is far more humane than a lengthy incarceration with no hope of life outside of a cell. We seem so preoccupied with the question of life or death, and never consider the question of quality of life.

I'm not concerned about cost. I'm concerned about human life.

It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.

"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.

Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...

 Jihadin wrote:
Penal Units.....

Is it bad that I read this wrong and immediately thought of Kronk?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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

The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.

If they received the death penalty there is no reformation or rehabilitation. tahts the worst of the worst and you never ever want them out again.

Are you going to rehabiitate Ted Bundy? The Aurora shooter? The murderer in the OP?

Well...we always wanted to colonize Mars..

 d-usa wrote:
It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.

"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.

Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...

Mmm, I thought this thread wasn't about the ACA. Thanks Obama!

None of the people you noted did anything wrong. A capital murder level murderer did, in spades.

And yet innocent people are convicted constantly, that's my point. Yes, this person was horrible and the death penalty was acceptable, but I would rather it not be used just in case.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.

"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.

Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...

Mmm, I thought this thread wasn't about the ACA. Thanks Obama!

None of the people you noted did anything wrong. A capital murder level murderer did, in spades.

And why should they follow the law when you are arguing against the law yourself?

Thought everyone convicted and in prison consider themselves "innocent"?

 Jihadin wrote:
Thought everyone convicted and in prison consider themselves "innocent"?

These guys never denied what they did, and innocence was not the basis of their court claims.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Penal Units.....

Is it bad that I read this wrong and immediately thought of Kronk?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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

The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.

If they received the death penalty there is no reformation or rehabilitation. tahts the worst of the worst and you never ever want them out again.

Are you going to rehabiitate Ted Bundy? The Aurora shooter? The murderer in the OP?

There's always the possibility. Serial killers (such as Ted Bundy) can dodge the death penalty anyway as many of them can be proven clinically insane (or even fake it), so it often doesn't help against them.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.

"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.

Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...

Mmm, I thought this thread wasn't about the ACA. Thanks Obama!

None of the people you noted did anything wrong. A capital murder level murderer did, in spades.

And why should they follow the law when you are arguing against the law yourself?

No where in this thread have I argued against the law. I'm not sure what posts you're reading, but they aren't mine.

Remember. IN SOVIET RUSSIA STALINGRAD ENCIRCLES YOU!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

There's always the possibility. Serial killers (such as Ted Bundy) can dodge the death penalty anyway as many of them can be proven clinically insane (or even fake it), so it often doesn't help against them.

So in your world its ok to let serial killers free. Wow, can they flop at your place?

So in your world its ok to let serial killers free. Wow, can they flop at your place?

Frazzle they can flop at your house and I will help you bury the bodies like a true friend

It will have to be the Houston house. I have a bayou right behind it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

It was very simple. Don't commit crimes that can result in the death penalty and we won't have to execute people

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

It was very simple. Don't commit crimes that can result in the death penalty and we won't have to execute people

Did you just use the 'don't got nothing to worry about if you don't commit a crime' argument?

*tears up*

I'm so proud

 kronk wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Penal Units.....

Where would we send theses Penal units and who is going to give them a gun?

Who said anything about giving them guns?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

It was very simple. Don't commit crimes that can result in the death penalty and we won't have to execute people

Or we could just put them in jail.



For anyone else commenting on my statements, try to not use the same exact response as everybody else. It's an argument that is meaningless and silly. It does not have any use.

 LordofHats wrote:
Did you just use the 'don't got nothing to worry about if you don't commit a crime' argument?

*tears up*

I'm so proud

Not really. It's the argument that if-you-rape-and-murder-people-please-don't-cry-when-you're-sentenced-to-death

 Frazzled wrote:

There's always the possibility. Serial killers (such as Ted Bundy) can dodge the death penalty anyway as many of them can be proven clinically insane (or even fake it), so it often doesn't help against them.

So in your world its ok to let serial killers free. Wow, can they flop at your place?

That is not what I said. I said that many serial killers can be diagnosed with pathologies which render them immune to the death penalty due to reduced culpability (not the right word but I can't remember what the correct term is).

Serial killers fall into the Life without Parole group due to their pathology which makes them extremely difficult to impossible to rehabilitate. We do this in the UK with serial killers such as Harold Shipman. They go into prison and they don't come out.

Killers without a psychotic pathology, say the man who kills his wife in a moment of passion after finding her with another man, can possibly be rehabilitated and become productive members of society. Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.

Some mistakes have consequences that are a little more permanent than others

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.

Some mistakes have consequences that are a little more permanent than others

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not concerned about cost. I'm concerned about human life.

Apparently not about the quality of it. You know there are over seven billion human lives on the planet. That every day, we drive other species extinct as we consume their habitats to drive our never ending quest for more human life. But how much of a life is it, sitting in a 9x9 cell for 23 hours a day?

d-usa wrote:It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.

"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.

That's naive. Of course cost should enter discussions. And, sorry, but your analogies are inappropriate here. There's nothing that equates someone convicted of violent crimes with orphans or homeless people. Those convict of violent crimes against society have already surrendered their right to be a part of society, and the discussion about what to do with them, how to remove them from society, absolutely should consider the cost to society. On the other hand, everyone else that you mention have done nothing wrong that requires their removal for our safety.

 Chongara wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.

Some mistakes have consequences that are a little more permanent than others

Substantial volumes of irony on an irony detector that had an analog needle like that wouldn't cause the needle to wrap around the post in that manner.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

Nah... ship all the death row guys to army and marine bases. Tie them up to the 300m target on qualification day. This way, they are generally far enough away the many people will think he's the standard green pop-up target, but close enough that a few people will take care of the problem.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.

Some mistakes have consequences that are a little more permanent than others

Such as executing an innocent person?