Why not just execute people who receive life without parole?

[Norsefire]

What's the point of keeping them? They'd just waste time and resources. They're going to die anyway, by the barbaric act of incarceration and imprisonment and being stripped of their freedom and humanity, why not get it over with?

This also ties in with my previous statement that life without parole and execution are both the same concept: permanent removal. So why not just get it over with?

As an added poll, regardless of your views on capital punishment, which do you think is the most humane or most appropriate execution method?

 

[Asguard]

because they can still be of use to sociaty even incaserated. They can study and be studied, they can produce things if they chose to, they can interact with people (including there family) and they can try to make amense with there victoms families if they chose.

They can also be exhoronated if they were innocent and be recompenced for there wrongful conviction

 

[Norsefire]

because they can still be of use to sociaty even incaserated. They can study and be studied, they can produce things if they chose to, they can interact with people (including there family) and they can try to make amense with there victoms families if they chose.

They can be of use dead as well. They can be studied, and their organs can be useful.

They can also be exhoronated if they were innocent and be recompenced for there wrongful conviction

Sure. But I find a man wasting (and having to go through) decades of torment in prison innocently, just as bad if not worse than wrongful execution.

 

[Asguard]

which is why they get million $ plus pay outs when they are releaced

 

[Norsefire]

which is why they get million $ plus pay outs when they are releaced

It's still not acceptable. Besides, there are also cases in which there is no doubt that the person who is convicted is the guilty one for sure. So why not execute them in this case?

 

[Asguard]

for the reasons i said above, it increases our level of knowlage so eventually life without parole will be unessary and we can treat these inderviduals

 

[Norsefire]

for the reasons i said above, it increases our level of knowlage so eventually life without parole will be unessary and we can treat these inderviduals

And killing them has benefits:

Their bodies can be studied and experimented on for scientific purposes

Their organs can also be useful

They can be used as compost or fertilizer, etc

They don't waste food and water and space

 

[vslayer]

people who have been detained by the government

should have as much right to assisted suicide as anyone, but to allow the government to not only ruin peoples lives by kidnapping them, but to go on and kill them, would be absolutely barbaric.

 

[Norsefire]

should have as much right to assisted suicide as anyone, but to allow the government to not only ruin peoples lives by kidnapping them, but to go on and kill them, would be absolutely barbaric.

You do know that we are talking about criminals right?

So criminals who go to prison are being "kindapped"?

What are you an anarchist?:bugeye:

 

[lepustimidus]

Don't liberals claim that one of the points of prison is rehabilitation and re-integration into the community. How can that occur if the prisoner receives life without payrole?

Like Norsefire says, wouldn't it just make more sense to just kill the prisoner?

 

[oiram]

What's the point of keeping them? They'd just waste time and resources. They're going to die anyway, by the barbaric act of incarceration and imprisonment and being stripped of their freedom and humanity, why not get it over with?

Ok I personally don’t think prison is barbaric if a person is a real threat to society, however I think it is barbaric if a person isn’t a real threat to society.

There was a statistic once I saw a few years ago that said 70% of inmates incarcerated were considered non violent offenders. If this is true then I would suggest letting them go with parole restrictions and supervision thus leaving room for serial killers and violent people.

Gang members concern me as they seem to get more violent with each passing year and those people in prison covered with Tattoos all over their face cause themselves a more difficult time in society finding jobs and being accepted by prejudice people who stereotype such people, thus in turn this creates a cycle of problems for society and the offender.… I personally do not feel comfortable with people with tattoos over their face or in places that can be seen even when wearing clothes.

Tattoos although they bother me and are something I don’t want for myself I have friends who have them and if they want them and like them then that is fine with me, I just think tattoos on a person’s face crosses a line for me and isn’t art or anything but a statement of needing attention or self degradation as the person clearly knows what the majority of society feels about such a topic.

 

[Asguard]

oiram what if the person was a tatttoo artist and was advertising his wears?

 

[tim840]

"What do you think is the most appropriate execution method?"

Electric chair or firing squad. They are quick and I believe fairly painless, if not totally. I would not go for lethal injection because I hate having needles stuck into me.

 

[vslayer]

You do know that we are talking about criminals right?

So criminals who go to prison are being "kindapped"?

What are you an anarchist?:bugeye:

how would you define a criminal? as i see it, anyone who takes away the freedom of any other person is a criminal, yet the overwhelming majority of these criminals are the government and the police.

 

[Steve100]

Yes I think they should.

Hanging is the best method I think.
It is humane, easy, quick, and costs little.

 

[Letticia]

I already stated my view on death penalty here. But as far as execution methods are concerned, I think this country has a schizophrenic attitude. We want executions to be quick and painless, but we also want them to LOOK "civilized". These two requirements may not be incompatible, but they almost are. There are many ways to kill a person quickly and painlessly, most of them involve instant destruction of the brain. But they look gruesome and barbaric, and are too much for modern sensibilities. But with civilized-looking methods, such as lethal injection, you can never know for sure the convict is not suffering -- precisely because nothing drastic is happening.

I voted "firing squad" as a reasonable compromise, but actually my preferred choice would be hypoxic air. Not poison gas, and not suffocation, but breathing pure nitrogen. Totally painless, you just pass out. Unfortunately, "gas chamber" of any kind has certain historical baggage...

 

[Norsefire]

how would you define a criminal? as i see it, anyone who takes away the freedom of any other person is a criminal, yet the overwhelming majority of these criminals are the government and the police.

The rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc

 

[James R]

What's the point of keeping them? They'd just waste time and resources.

If they turn out to be innocent later on, you can't undo an execution.

This also ties in with my previous statement that life without parole and execution are both the same concept: permanent removal. So why not just get it over with?

You assume that life in prison must be a meaningless, worthless life. There's no proof of that. Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment in prison. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for close to 30 years, and look what he went on to do.

As an added poll, regardless of your views on capital punishment, which do you think is the most humane or most appropriate execution method?

Obviously, if you're against capital punishment, you think all methods are barbaric.

And killing them has benefits:

Their bodies can be studied and experimented on for scientific purposes

Their organs can also be useful

They can be used as compost or fertilizer, etc

They don't waste food and water and space

Prisoners are people, not things.

You sound like a sociopath.

Don't liberals claim that one of the points of prison is rehabilitation and re-integration into the community. How can that occur if the prisoner receives life without parole?

Consider Dostoyevsky, for example. Or Mandela.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

No people who get life in prison should not be executed. People can still accomplish a great many things while in prison. I know that all of the chairs in the stadium at my old school were made by prisoners in a high security prison. A life in prison is not a meaningless life its just another way to live. And for truly terrible criminals who are in fact without a doubt guilty I think killing them is letting them off easily. I'm kind of sick for thinking this I know, but I think they should receive life in solitary confinement without parole. No entertainment just food, water, toilet, and bed. Nothing rots you like being left alone to your own thoughts. ie Cabin Fever. I think that is a much better punishment.

 

[SheWolf]

It's a very good point that keeping them alive leaves a chance for them to be proven innocent. Sure, some may be guilty without a doubt, but an uncertain rule of "well, execute them ONLY if they're guilty without a doubt" doesn't work, it's got to be either black of white. And in my opinion, it's more important to save an innocent life than it is to kill a guilty one.

Also, what about death row? People can be on death row for 20 years; they're still using up resources, there's still the cost of execution etc.