Capital Punishment

[Erk02]

I'm Pro-Punishment but they got to change the whole thing.

 

Spend 1.3 million dollars on a painless death? [bleep] that! If the murder tortured the poor vitim, then torture him too. Murder shot his leg till he bleed to death? Shoot him in the leg. Simple: How you killed your vitim = How you'll die.

 

Please, don't put the inhumane thing to me since the murder isn't quite humane in the first place eh? Why should we give him mercy?

 

 

 

I know someone will post the whole 'A eye for a eye makes the whole world blind.' Well in my system, you only do it to people who are guilty. The police who kills the murder isn't guilty, he's just doing his stop of eliminating the guilty.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read in this forum in a while, if we do that, we're just sinking to the level of the criminal.

[fakeitormakeit]

1. Its agaisnt my belief of a human is not suppose to take another human's life no matter what they did.

 

 

 

2. You could kill them and end up finding 20years later you got the wrong guy, life is priceless.

 

 

 

3. Your giving them the easy way out, rot in jail for 70years or die in 7 seconds?

[Giordano]

I'm Pro-Punishment but they got to change the whole thing.

 

Spend 1.3 million dollars on a painless death? [bleep] that! If the murder tortured the poor vitim, then torture him too. Murder shot his leg till he bleed to death? Shoot him in the leg. Simple: How you killed your vitim = How you'll die.

 

Please, don't put the inhumane thing to me since the murder isn't quite humane in the first place eh? Why should we give him mercy?

 

 

 

I know someone will post the whole 'A eye for a eye makes the whole world blind.' Well in my system, you only do it to people who are guilty. The police who kills the murder isn't guilty, he's just doing his stop of eliminating the guilty.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read in this forum in a while, if we do that, we're just sinking to the level of the criminal.

 

Meh...Better than letting them have free TV, food, and a place to stay for the next 20 years.

[Erk02]

I'm Pro-Punishment but they got to change the whole thing.

 

Spend 1.3 million dollars on a painless death? [bleep] that! If the murder tortured the poor vitim, then torture him too. Murder shot his leg till he bleed to death? Shoot him in the leg. Simple: How you killed your vitim = How you'll die.

 

Please, don't put the inhumane thing to me since the murder isn't quite humane in the first place eh? Why should we give him mercy?

 

 

 

I know someone will post the whole 'A eye for a eye makes the whole world blind.' Well in my system, you only do it to people who are guilty. The police who kills the murder isn't guilty, he's just doing his stop of eliminating the guilty.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read in this forum in a while, if we do that, we're just sinking to the level of the criminal.

 

Meh...Better than letting them have free TV, food, and a place to stay for the next 20 years.

It's not too free tbh.

[Kashi]

Apparently it's around 1.3 million dollars, which is complete crap, because a bullet is like 7 cents last I checked. Do the math, still cheaper than housing them.

 

 

 

I don't know how much it costs to get it approved, or set up, or whatever.

 

 

 

But the actual injection they give you is just a heart-stopping dose of potassium which

 

costs about $8 to manufacture.

[warri0r45]

100-200k dollars a year..Thats utter Rubbish

 

 

 

So your saying it takes 4 times as much to feed and cloth one person

 

 

 

 

 

than lets say a Family of 3 on a yearly salary of $25,000.

 

 

 

 

 

Id say its around $5000 , Mabye less.....Also prisons most probably buy there food in bulk so its much cheaper. Prisoners in England who want extra food (Like chocolate) have to work for it or have family give it to the....

 

 

 

I am against the Death on the one principle that you never know its that actual person

 

 

 

 

 

How much does it cost to incarcerate an inmate for a year?

 

 

 

In Fiscal Year 2004-05, it cost $18,108 a year or $49.61 a day to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide medical services for an inmate at a major prison, which is only $486 more per year than it cost the previous fiscal year. For more inmate cost per day information, go to http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ pub/annual/ 0405/budget.html.

 

 

 

Just got that off the web (Florida Prison I think) so its a bit more than I thought but still way of 100k

 

 

 

That's hilarious. 5 grand? Go look it up. The government always spends crazy amounts of money on stuff, and Prisoners is no exception. They probably buy their food from companies who over-charge them to boot, just because they can.

 

 

 

Come on dude, you adressed his guess but didn't adress the statistic he gave. The rationalisation with a 'probably' in the end just makes it worse.

[Icingdeath]

Put murderers to death. They know what they were doing when they killed someone else. Don't put them on death row for 60 years and let them die of old age.

[Viktorkrum77]

Murderers who killed 1 to 4 people should be sent to do labor work under controlled situations for their whole life. Once they're over 35 or 40 they should be sentenced to death. Anyone over 5 should be sentenced to death.

[Randox]

I live in canada where life is NOT 60 years, it's normally 15 with chance of parole, sometimes 25-30 years before parole. I don't wan't some serial killer being relesed into the community.

[Led-Zeppelin]

2. You could kill them and end up finding 20years later you got the wrong guy, life is priceless.

 

 

 

 

You've gotta break some eggs to make an omlette. I mean, I'm sure there are people that have spent their whole lives in prison, and died in prison for crimes they didn't commit and never got out, much better?

[Harrington]

2. You could kill them and end up finding 20years later you got the wrong guy, life is priceless.

 

 

 

 

You've gotta break some eggs to make an omlette. I mean, I'm sure there are people that have spent their whole lives in prison, and died in prison for crimes they didn't commit and never got out, much better?

 

 

 

Oh, maybe we should just stop jailing people too... I mean God, what if we get it wrong?

 

 

 

That's precisely the mentality criminals love to hear... they're encouraged by the tree hugging human rights activists and an overly complex legal system which can be abused, knowing that there's good odds that they'll get away with it (or at least a reduced sentence).

 

 

 

A Good Example

 

There's a local case here, where a man was jailed in the late 70s for murdering his brother (he put an axe through his head, repeatedly). The evidence was overwhelming and he was sent to jail for "life".

 

 

 

15 years later, he was released for good behaviour lol. That was in '94. Guess what, that same year he murdered another person. Again the evidence is quite overwhelming and he confessed apparently.

 

 

 

The new court case lasted a year, despite the evidence and he was again jailed for "life" (early '96).

 

 

 

You'll never guess what... he's been released again. He did less than 9 years for his second murder.

 

 

 

What's even worse, he's been given a new identity to protect him! Oh, and guess who paid for all of this? Yup, us hard working law abiding tax payers.

 

 

 

This sort of thing happens all of the time, this just happens to be a case I read about on BBC. I'll find the link if anyone is really interested.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Murderers who killed 1 to 4 people should be sent to do labor work under controlled situations for their whole life. Once they're over 35 or 40 they should be sentenced to death. Anyone over 5 should be sentenced to death.

 

Interesting argument... so you'll detain them from the public at the tax payers' expense, just to have them killed at the end anyway? I'd understand if you it was to give a chance to reform, or to detain with more humanity, but this argument has no logic behind it whatsoever, apart from the final eight words.

 

 

 

Oh, maybe we should just stop jailing people too... I mean God, what if we get it wrong?

 

 

 

That's precisely the mentality criminals love to hear... they're encouraged by the tree hugging human rights activists and an overly complex legal system which can be abused, knowing that there's good odds that they'll get away with it (or at least a reduced sentence).

 

I border this response on prejudism actually. You don't need to be a human rights activist (BTW, since when did they all "tree-hug") to have this problem in thinking the death penalty is wrong. We're not saying don't jail them either, do you think we're anarchists? What we're saying is that if you get the wrong person, at least then you have a chance to let them free and live the rest of their life with comparative normality. Under your argument, they're dead, while the real murderer got away.

 

 

 

To be honest, it scares me so many people overlook this argument in favour of 'pro-punishment', which is an ancient old argument papers like the Daily Mail have been churning out for donkeys years now. This is the 21st Century - the times of Capital Punishment are thankfully long behind us.

[Gamerr]

So...Mr. Dude who killed 10 people gets to spend his life in prison, having his meals handed to him at an expense of $100-200k/year paid for by the state (AKA, you)?

 

 

 

Pretty sure killing the bastard is a better choice.

 

 

 

Personally, I'd rather die than sit in prison, but there isn't much bad about having all your meals given to you and getting to watch TV 17 hours a day.

 

 

 

LMFAO. I see your american, but still LMFAO.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Just a though about people who support 'pro-punishment', and then go on to say, "They should be shot dead for murder". The two just completely run counter to each other. If you shoot someone dead, that isn't punishing them, as it's not forcing them to think or live with the sin they have caused. Killing them, however, relieves them off their sin.

 

 

 

This argument makes little-to-no sense.

[BlueTear]

I'm under no illusion that capital punishment would stop these horrible crimes, of course not, but they would certainly reduce instances of them (assuming the legal process isn't so complex and offering wouldbe criminals false hope that the odds of escaping it are in their favour).

 

 

 

It may not stop it altogether... but each death penalty will certainly reduce it by one.

 

 

 

And is that a personal belief of yours, or something you've got a scientific study for?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm under no illusion that capital punishment would stop these horrible crimes, of course not, but they would certainly reduce instances of them (assuming the legal process isn't so complex and offering wouldbe criminals false hope that the odds of escaping it are in their favour).

 

 

 

It may not stop it altogether... but each death penalty will certainly reduce it by one.

 

 

 

And is that a personal belief of yours, or something you've got a scientific study for?

 

 

 

Agreed. When weighing up the satisfaction of killing someone against the possible punishments, I can't see how a murderer would be more detered because (s)he's gonna be killed after than if the punishment was life in prison.

[assassin_696]

The death penalty is wrong:

 

 

 

1. You're saying murder is wrong, then you're murdering a person in cold blood for his crimes. That's hypocritical and simply vengeful.

 

 

 

2. Human life is a right which no court system should have the power to take away without consent.

 

 

 

3. There are chances for miscarriages of justice.

 

 

 

4. It's not an effective deterrent.

 

 

 

5. It's barbaric and tribal, we should be ethically above killing people for their actions.

 

 

 

6. If the crime was heinous enough, the death penalty seems a little good for them, or might even make them a martyr.

[Harrington]

Just a though about people who support 'pro-punishment', and then go on to say, "They should be shot dead for murder". The two just completely run counter to each other. If you shoot someone dead, that isn't punishing them, as it's not forcing them to think or live with the sin they have caused. Killing them, however, relieves them off their sin.

 

 

 

This argument makes little-to-no sense.

 

 

 

You just don't get it do you? You've completely missed the whole point... it's not about punishment. It's about deterrent!

 

 

 

I'm not vengeful, I don't to punish people for the sake of it or "to get my own back". It's not about that in the least. All I care about is stopping the crimes from happening in the first place.

 

 

 

Society today is too focused on closing the stable doors after the horse has bolted. This is symolic of society's views on the justice system.

 

 

 

Take Ian Huntly for example. He was found guilty of abusing children many years ago. He was given community service and a fine. He ruined at least one child's life, and was barely punished for it.

 

 

 

Several years later, he kills two little girls. Murders, then abuses, then burns the bodies...

 

 

 

He has since been caught and jailed at an estimated cost of 1.5 million thus far. Who knows much more resouces will be used for the duration of his sentence, his dedicated guard, special seperated cell and of course, the three court appeals he's permitted.

 

 

 

Now, legally we can't keep him in prison for more than 25 years. He has stated himself that he shouldn't be released. Despite this he will be back out there in the general public with a new identity no doubt.

 

 

 

How can anyone possibly think this is acceptable? I challange you, what kind of person, no matter how compassionate can possibly argue that this person should ever be allowed out of prison? Yet already there are people saying that his rights have been infringed and calling for mis-trial etc...

 

 

 

My point here is that he knew the odds of being caught were long and falsely believed that he could get around the legal system like he did last time. He clearly wasn't discouraged by the thought of a minimal punishment.

 

 

 

I don't know why I bother getting upset about it. It doesn't matter what I say, nothing will ever change and I don't expect to change anyone's views, especially not here. But it's nice to voice my frustrations, even if no one is actually listening... or reading properly.

[assassin_696]

You just don't get it do you? You've completely missed the whole point... it's not about punishment. It's about deterrent!

 

 

 

I'm not vengeful, I don't to punish people for the sake of it or "to get my own back". It's not about that in the least. All I care about is stopping the crimes from happening in the first place.

 

 

 

Perhaps if it really was a deterrent then there might be a convincing argument for it. As it stands, the states in the US which have the death penalty also have the higher crime and murder rates. When people commit a crime they don't weigh up the potential sentences they might get, they don't plan on getting caught.

[Harrington]

You just don't get it do you? You've completely missed the whole point... it's not about punishment. It's about deterrent!

 

 

 

I'm not vengeful, I don't to punish people for the sake of it or "to get my own back". It's not about that in the least. All I care about is stopping the crimes from happening in the first place.

 

 

 

Perhaps if it really was a deterrent then there might be a convincing argument for it. As it stands, the states in the US which have the death penalty also have the higher crime and murder rates. When people commit a crime they don't weigh up the potential sentences they might get, they don't plan on getting caught.

 

 

 

Ok, here's a chart of total crimes commited as an average per population. The higher up the graph, the worse it is right?

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... per-capita

 

 

 

Now here's a graph showing actual sentence length. I was operating on the theory, that the longer the sentence, the less likely people are to commit said crime in the first place...

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_s ... nce-length

 

 

 

With a very few exceptions, the graphs show that in general my theory is supported. The countries with the shortest sentences (and I've got another graph somewhere that shows money spent per criminal), have the highest crime rates and vice versa.

 

 

 

What I'm trying to say, is that in these countries people are discouraged from commiting crime as they know the sentences are harsh. This would translate here and in the US. Would you not agree? Higher sentences and worse jail conditions would reduce crime somewhat?

 

 

 

You are absolutely correct that the death penalty has little effect in the states that it's in place. However, less than 1% of murders warrant the death penalty. It is likely (although no one has evidence for it), that would be murders are well aware of this fact and think that they are quite likely to sidestep an actual death sentence, given how rare such a sentence is.

 

 

 

It's not an effective deterrant as the odds of being given a death sentence are incredibly small.

[assassin_696]

I think if a life sentence actually meant life (which it should IMO) crime rates would probably be lowered.

 

 

 

Yeah, I can see that your theory generally holds and makes sense, but the mind of a criminal doesn't work to fit statistics, even with a death penalty for stealing a bun from a stall you'd still get murderers.

 

 

 

And either way it's morally wrong, I think a life sentence in a grotty jail would be a worse deterrent.

[mrscrounger]

Now a days the penalties for crime is to low. A man here in canada can murder someone and basically get a little tap on his wrists, I mean seriously all rapists, murderers should be shot none of this 10 year sentance and than 3 years later get released for good behaviour. If countries would make the punishments greater there will be less crime because people will think before they do something.

[Harrington]

I think if a life sentence actually meant life (which it should IMO) crime rates would probably be lowered.

 

 

 

Yeah, I can see that your theory generally holds and makes sense, but the mind of a criminal doesn't work to fit statistics, even with a death penalty for stealing a bun from a stall you'd still get murderers.

 

 

 

And either way it's morally wrong, I think a life sentence in a grotty jail would be a worse deterrent.

 

 

 

Ok I agree :) Perhaps the death penalty is a little harsh. I would be in favour of scrapping it on the condition that life sentences meant as such, and that conditions in jail were lowered somewhat (to increase capacity and lower the tax burden on us).

 

 

 

Slightly O.T. here....

 

 

 

LOL, did you read the case here in Britain where inmates successfully sued the government because they didn't have their own personal toilets?

 

 

 

I read one on the BBC website a few weeks ago about a pending court case whereby a prisoner is sueing over his TV. He's demanding a LCD/Plasma as his CRT takes up too much room lol. Insane really ;)

[assassin_696]

Meh, send em to the Russian gulags for a few weeks, then bring em back and see if they're still cheeky enough to demand a plasma TV :P

 

 

 

Cheeky beggers.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well, apparently Ian Huntley's (the murderer of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in the Soham murders) loving it in prison. They say he has good food, a comfortable cell and everything. Then again... this was the Sun reporting it, so I dunno if it take that as a particularly reliable source. :lol: