Do you agree with capital punishment?

[Norsefire]

Since when is punishment a crime deterrent? That's police force, and a different issue. Punishment is punishment.

Robbing a Human of his freedom when he has robbed others of their sanity and lives, is not so bad right? As I said, he would enjoy it if we did the same to him.

It might cost more, but that's because of the current system. Trials aside, bullets are cheap.

 

[spidergoat]

Criminals also want an orgy of hookers and drugs, should we give them that?

We aren't going to change our system to summary execution, so that's unrealistic.

 

[Norsefire]

No, give them what they gave to others, and that which they thoroughly enjoyed.

 

[spidergoat]

The evidence is circumstantial, the accused gave a false confession after being intimidated by the cops... it happens.

 

[Syzygys]

Man, we are going in circles. Nothing in your post is new and al;ready dealt with. But I have one very nice analogy for you, educative too:

You hope the people you have killed are guilty of the crimes

Did you know that doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA? So using your logic we should stop caring for sick people, because occasionally (actually wrong word because quite often) doctors kill their patients, accidentally of course:

http://www.chattanoogahealth.com/Articles/2135/1/Doctors_May_Be_Third_Leading_Cause_of_Death.aspx

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
12,000 — unnecessary surgery
7,000 — medication errors in hospitals
20,000 — other errors in hospitals
80,000 — infections in hospitals
106,000 — non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

So forget about that 3900 solders in Iraq, doctors are the real menace to society!!

 

[BlueMoose]

If you are ready to give someone the capital punishment,
then you should be able to do the execution also. And hope he is not innocent.

 

[sandy]

You hope the people you have killed are guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted, but that is not necessarily so. Some people are wrongly convicted.
Robbing a human being of freedom is a terrible thing, and TV doesn't make up for it.
Capital punishment costs more, it's not a deterrent, and we as human beings make mistakes in how it's applied. We aren't trying to be cruel when we lock someone up for life, we are merely separating them from society, which is all society needs. Do you really trust your government with the power to kill you? The same government that runs the DMV?
There is no net benefit to society from the death penalty, the only reason it's legal is because it wins votes. It gives the appearance of being tough on crime, regardless of it's actual effect on crime.

Most of the people executed ARE guilty--of heinous crimes against humanity/society. They deserve to fry. Giving a freakin' loser a paid vacation/3 meals + snacks per day/healthcare/dental care/money for work/workout rooms/his own place with tv/internet/library/whatever he wants is NOT punishment. It's a move up for most of the scum there.
AND law-abiding taxpayers have to foot the bill!

If we actually fried more scum it WOULD be a deterrent. We're too soft. Fry 'em all!

 

[mountainhare]

spidergoat:

Capital punishment costs more,

Why? I still don't understand how frying them costs more than keeping them in prison for 50 years. Unless they are on death row for 50 years before getting fried. If that's the case, then I can propose a solution...

it's not a deterrent

Vlad the Impaler would disagree with you.

 

[Syzygys]

you should be able to do the execution also. And hope he is not innocent.

I don't have a problem with flipping the switch for Jeffrey (Dahmer that is). Hope is a four letter word in my world, by the way.

I still don't understand how frying them costs more than keeping them in prison for 50 years.

It is actually true, but only in the USA's fucked up justice system. So in most countries where it is not true, the argument doesn't stand.
I can kill it in another way too: Why should cost be a consideration when we try to do justice? After all if we can waste money on putting robots on Mars or whatever else, spending a few bucks on justice shouldn't be a problem.

By the way I am curious, what is the number or % of the innocently executed let's say in the last decade? And weren't they guilty of something else? After all, people don't just end up on deathrow....

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Syzygys

Mod Hat — Syzygys

As I understand the policy these days, I actually have to make a public point of your transgressions, so this is it. I have warned you once privately (re: #122), and you simply chose to escalate (#132). This is, simply put, not smart.

Do not continue trolling and flaming this or any other discussion or you will be enjoying some mandatory time away from Sciforums.

Easy enough? Good.

Update: After further review, while marking post #133 in accordance with current policy, I have decided to escalate accordingly and issue a one-day suspension. Continued behavior of this sort will, naturally, result in longer mandatory vacations.

 

[mountainhare]

You fucking cunt, Tiassa. How dare you warn Syzygys when it was YOU who began the flaming.

Mod Note: You're out of line on this one, Mountainhare. You know better, and if for some reason you'd like to pretend you don't, see #153 below.

 

[mountainhare]

Just incase anyone here has some sort of damage to their memory:

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Your point is moot. In my example the teenagers were 100% GUILTY. ”

Tiassa: (chortle!) What, when reality is inconvenient, insist on fantasy?

“ Now do you agree, if the criminal is 100% guilty CP can be justified??? ”

Tiassa: Nope. You know, though, if you tack on a few more question marks, maybe your argument will be more convincing.


“ Also my previous post's question : why not raising the standard for CP instead of abolishing it? ”

Tiassa: Because all we are accomplishing by executing criminals is satisfying our bloodlust.


“ Sounds like a pussy cop-out.... ”

Tiassa: Now that is a convincing argument.

Seriously, Syz, investing your pro-homicide argument in moronic machismo isn't going to get you much. All you accomplish by that is to remind people that there's not much for a rational argument in favor of capital punishment.

The performance-art value of your post is remarkable. You provide a strong reminder of the lengths some folks will go to in order to feel good about homicide.

If the above bolded statements aren't flaming, then I don't know what the fuck is.

Mod Note: Your opinion/confusion is duly noted. Additionally, you know better than to muck up a topic complaining about the moderators. See #153 below.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Mountainhare

Mod Hat — Mountainhare

You fucking cunt, Tiassa. How dare you warn Syzygys when it was YOU who began the flaming. (#151)

• • •​

Just incase anyone here has some sort of damage to their memory (#152)

I looked up your next ban period, and it's a one-month trip. This latest outburst of yours certainly qualifies as your written request:

• In the first place, you've been around long enough to know that you're not going to accomplish anything good screaming and at the moderators.

• Additionally, you've also been around long enough to know to not muck up discussions with complaints about the moderators.​

My suggestion is that you calm yourself and reconsider your approach.

Tiassa: If the above bolded statements aren't flaming, then I don't know what the fuck is.

Your opinion and confusion regarding this issue are duly noted.

 

[spidergoat]

Most of the people executed ARE guilty--of heinous crimes against humanity/society. They deserve to fry. Giving a freakin' loser a paid vacation/3 meals + snacks per day/healthcare/dental care/money for work/workout rooms/his own place with tv/internet/library/whatever he wants is NOT punishment. It's a move up for most of the scum there.
AND law-abiding taxpayers have to foot the bill!

If we actually fried more scum it WOULD be a deterrent. We're too soft. Fry 'em all!

You use the word "most". So, you acknowledge that some people are wrongly put to death. Shouldn't that be more important than whatever advantage is to be gained to society by killing those who are guilty?

 

[sandy]

You use the word "most". So, you acknowledge that some people are wrongly put to death. Shouldn't that be more important than whatever advantage is to be gained to society by killing those who are guilty?

No, because I think the non-guilty number is ridiculously low. I'm all for loving everyone, but not criminals. I despise them. And those who ultimately end up being found not guilty are almost always guilty of plenty of other crimes. Most criminals aren't on death row for one offense. The final big one maybe, but seldom one. Most are career criminals.

 

[Norsefire]

Use my fabulous new logic, that criminals do what they do because they enjoy and therefore would enjoy it being done to them! So execute murderers, they'll love it. Torture torturers, they'll love it! Shove a stick up a rapist's ass all day, etc, and they'll love it!

Fucking criminals deserve death, that's why they are called criminals


Of course, minor crimes are a different matter. But as for extreme, heinous crimes, as sandy said why should we give them leisure time? Which WE pay for?

 

[spidergoat]

That's quite an assumption to make. People that kill innocent people should die, but the state can kill a certain small number of innocent people on your behalf, even when there is no emergency that requires it. (I am a criminal too, so are most of the people I know who have violated some law or other.)

 

[Archie]

Capital punishment is costly because our (United States) current system allows practically any number of appeals based on very little. A capital crime is essentially a life time income for one or more attornies.

The primary practical criticism of capital punishment is the erroneous rate of conviction. So what about people who were erroneously convicted of say robbery and spend seven years in prison - erroneously? Should we not incarcerate people because some may have been convicted erroneously? Additionally, it is breakthroughs in DNA evidence that shows this or that person was convicted erroneously. However, since DNA evidence is now convicting murderers, we can be sure they are not convicted erroneously, right?

Not executing a murderer essentially says the murdered victim is not so very important. The victim's life was taken unlawfully, but the one who committed such outrage is entitled to life on at public expense. It's a way for society to tell the victim and the victim's survivors they really do not matter.

Executing a person convicted of a capital crime does have a deterrent effect on the rate of capital crime. However, it is the execution and not the law on the books unused that causes the deterrent effect.

Lastly, capital punishment has an absolute deterrence factor on recidivism.

 

[spidergoat]

Norsefire, because it ends up costing more.

Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy
In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million.

Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences

The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993).

Florida spends millions extra per year on death penalty
Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

Capital punishment is costly because our (United States) current system allows practically any number of appeals based on very little.

So not only to you advocate the death penalty, you want to loosen up restrictions on carrying out the sentence?

Even if you believe in the concept, shouldn't we make absolutely sure of guilt?

 

[Norsefire]

What about it is costly? The trials? Or the actual execution? Because I can guarantee you, execution shouldn't be; bullets are cheap.