Please Lock.

[Noxx]

Why go through a more lengthy process when capital punishment is involved? Give the guy the same treatment as any other criminal. Take away his chance of an appeal.

 

Why would you have a less intensive process when someone's life is on the line? On top of that, taking away any chance of appeal, you're out for blood haha. You seem to assume if someone is on trial for murder, they're automatically guilty. Like I posted on the last page, innocent people can fall victim to the justice system.

 

He failed to win his case the first time, why should we let him go over his faults and come up with a better case (lie) the second time?

Uhm, really? How about if new evidence comes out proving their innocence?

No, don't get me wrong. i'm not saying if you;re up for trial youre guilty. I know people get wrongfully accused and that those people usually are found innocent. So i'm not saying kill them without a fair trail.

And sure, previous post might have been a bit harsh. Things like new evidence often gets provided and often can change the outcome. But still, these are things that can happen in any case wether or not death penalty is the punishment.

Although i am still unsure why more money is spent on a case where death is the punishment as to say, a case where 10 years is the punishment.

[Noxx]

The Financial Costs of the Death Penalty

 

Death penalty cases are much more expensive than other criminal cases and cost more than imprisonment for life with no possibility of parole. In California, capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials.(1) A study in Kansas indicated that a capital trial costs $116,700 more than an ordinary murder trial.(2) Complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses for expert witnesses are all likely to add to the costs in death penalty cases. The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs.

 

Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the "unsuccessful" trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved. Moreover, if a defendant is convicted but not given the death sentence, the state will still incur the costs of life imprisonment, in addition to the increased trial expenses.

 

For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.(3) In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.(4) In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment.(5) The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.(6)

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html

 

Also click here for more information.

Yeah i guess in that case it does cost a lot more. But maybe that's where a change can be made. Why go through a more lengthy process when capital punishment is involved? Give the guy the same treatment as any other criminal. Take away his chance of an appeal. He failed to win his case the first time, why should we let him go over his faults and come up with a better case (lie) the second time?

Also, i'm not talking Lethal Injection or Gas Chamber which costs money. Heck not even the electric chair. Go cheap. A good old hangman's noose will work just as fine and will cost a fraction of the price.

 

Oh I am sorry, he shouldn't have the chance to appeal for his life? Heck why not publicly execute people in sports stadiums like they do in the Middle East while you're at it :rolleyes:

 

Capital punishment is an obsolete form of justice. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Yes keeping them locked up for life is expensive but that wouldnt be an issue if they didn't have life sentences for drug use.

Rofl i smell the stench of ignorance...

[Noxx]

How is that an ignorant statement?

 

Politically incorrect yes, but I was not wrong to say that. I can dig up dozens of live videos of public executions in those countries, national policy on death penalty (including being some of the only countries in the world who's governments still allow beheading as a form of execution) or news reports of such incidents.

 

 

After typing "public executions in the middle east" on google, here is the first article I grabbed.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6927434.stm

 

BBC news, so it is a creditable news source

 

 

 

My point still stands violence creates more violence, not solves the problem.

It's not what you said, but the way you said it. Making it sound like a sport. Like something they do for fun, which clearly it's not. Also that article said 177 death/year. Thats still a very small number. And yes, it increased. But who can put the blame on the death penalty? Crime increaes in South Africa each second. We donnot have the death penalty. So we can just aswell say that a less-harsh punishment increases violence too. Undersand my point?

[Bloodstain]

The death penalty has been proven to be completely ineffective as a deterrent time after time after time.

 

Abolishing it is an important step in reforming our archaic justice system into something that actually functions.

If so (and i'm not saying you are wrong), howcome countries that still follow through with some sort of death penalty often have the lowest crime rates? And i mean crimes from petty theft to large scale fraud/murder?

Also, i for one can say that South Africa had a much lower crime rate when we still had the Death Penalty.

 

Y_Guy is 100% right. Death penalty has never ever been a proven deterrent, it costs tons of money in appeals like another poster mentioned (the fact that you didn't know this tells me you didn't research it very well), and it can even possibly cause the public to act MORE violent after an execution (though I've just started reading about that). IIRC, USA is on of few first world countries with the death penalty? Also, you say that other countries with the death penalty have lower crime rates. Lower than who? What type of crime? How come murder rates aren't impacted at all by having a death penalty, and why do some states that have the death penalty have HIGHER rates of homicide than their neighboring states that don't have the death penalty?

 

 

 

blue: Abolished for all crimes

green: Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)

orange: Abolished in practice

pink: Legal form of punishment for certain offenses

 

All the death penalty achieves is retribution that people think for some reason needs to happen

[Bloodstain]

No offense but for a 12000 word essay, you didn't do a very good job researching

[Noxx]

How is that an ignorant statement?

 

Politically incorrect yes, but I was not wrong to say that. I can dig up dozens of live videos of public executions in those countries, national policy on death penalty (including being some of the only countries in the world who's governments still allow beheading as a form of execution) or news reports of such incidents.

 

 

After typing "public executions in the middle east" on google, here is the first article I grabbed.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6927434.stm

 

BBC news, so it is a creditable news source

 

 

 

My point still stands violence creates more violence, not solves the problem.

It's not what you said, but the way you said it. Making it sound like a sport. Like something they do for fun, which clearly it's not. Also that article said 177 death/year. Thats still a very small number. And yes, it increased. But who can put the blame on the death penalty? Crime increaes in South Africa each second. We donnot have the death penalty. So we can just aswell say that a less-harsh punishment increases violence too. Undersand my point?

 

Nope I said sports arena because it is a heavily populated location where public executions do take place. But nice assumption.

 

Lots of factors contribute to crime, but generally speaking someone raised around violence is more likely to commit violent crimes. South Africa has a number of problems, a lot of political and social problems that can contribute to that. Would the death penalty solve that problem? no, if anything it would increase it.

Actuaully the death penalty in South Africa might just solve more problems than it would cause. Hard to beleive, but true. As i said, when we had the death penalty our crime rates were muc lower.

 

Aslo, Bloodstain, i didn't do any research at all. None was required. Why waste time writing about the USA and Middle East when it would have 0 effect on anything else i write? The essay is about crime reduction, not the economy.

[Bloodstain]

Aslo, Bloodstain, i didn't do any research at all. None was required. Why waste time writing about the USA and Middle East when it would have 0 effect on anything else i write? The essay is about crime reduction, not the economy.

 

Are you trolling or just incredibly stupid?

[Noxx]

Aslo, Bloodstain, i didn't do any research at all. None was required. Why waste time writing about the USA and Middle East when it would have 0 effect on anything else i write? The essay is about crime reduction, not the economy.

 

Are you trolling or just incredibly stupid?

Wow, yeah that came out really wrong.

What i meant to say was: South Africa was a county with problem, like any other country. We had crime, yes. We managed to limit this crime though, using the death penalty. Soon as the death penalty was taken away our crime rates increased, a lot. And it kept on increasing. So clearly the death penalty did work, somehow.

Now, the essay was based on that. It was based on how the crime rate then compares to the crime rate now. And by bringing it back there is hope that we might be able to decrease the crime rate again. So basically it would be useless for me to write about the death penalty in the USA or the Middle East and how the death penalty costs more money in the USA and how it increases violence in the Middle East, when in reality those two factors have nothing to do with what the death penalty does for South Africa.

Is that a bit better? :\

[Bloodstain]

Aslo, Bloodstain, i didn't do any research at all. None was required. Why waste time writing about the USA and Middle East when it would have 0 effect on anything else i write? The essay is about crime reduction, not the economy.

 

Are you trolling or just incredibly stupid?

Wow, yeah that came out really wrong.

What i meant to say was: South Africa was a county with problem, like any other country. We had crime, yes. We managed to limit this crime though, using the death penalty. Soon as the death penalty was taken away our crime rates increased, a lot. And it kept on increasing. So clearly the death penalty did work, somehow.

Now, the essay was based on that. It was based on how the crime rate then compares to the crime rate now. And by bringing it back there is hope that we might be able to decrease the crime rate again. So basically it would be useless for me to write about the death penalty in the USA or the Middle East and how the death penalty costs more money in the USA and how it increases violence in the Middle East, when in reality those two factors have nothing to do with what the death penalty does for South Africa.

Is that a bit better? :\

 

No, I was talking generally. Are you trolling or just really stupid?

[Noxx]

Aslo, Bloodstain, i didn't do any research at all. None was required. Why waste time writing about the USA and Middle East when it would have 0 effect on anything else i write? The essay is about crime reduction, not the economy.

 

Are you trolling or just incredibly stupid?

Wow, yeah that came out really wrong.

What i meant to say was: South Africa was a county with problem, like any other country. We had crime, yes. We managed to limit this crime though, using the death penalty. Soon as the death penalty was taken away our crime rates increased, a lot. And it kept on increasing. So clearly the death penalty did work, somehow.

Now, the essay was based on that. It was based on how the crime rate then compares to the crime rate now. And by bringing it back there is hope that we might be able to decrease the crime rate again. So basically it would be useless for me to write about the death penalty in the USA or the Middle East and how the death penalty costs more money in the USA and how it increases violence in the Middle East, when in reality those two factors have nothing to do with what the death penalty does for South Africa.

Is that a bit better? :\

 

No, I was talking generally. Are you trolling or just really stupid?

Oh i see. This is one of those "feeding the troll" situations. Okay :)

Please refrain from spamming please.

[Bloodstain]

You know next to nothing/did zero research on your own topic. You need to leave for a while and educate yourself

[Noxx]

How is that an ignorant statement?

 

Politically incorrect yes, but I was not wrong to say that. I can dig up dozens of live videos of public executions in those countries, national policy on death penalty (including being some of the only countries in the world who's governments still allow beheading as a form of execution) or news reports of such incidents.

 

 

After typing "public executions in the middle east" on google, here is the first article I grabbed.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6927434.stm

 

BBC news, so it is a creditable news source

 

 

 

My point still stands violence creates more violence, not solves the problem.

It's not what you said, but the way you said it. Making it sound like a sport. Like something they do for fun, which clearly it's not. Also that article said 177 death/year. Thats still a very small number. And yes, it increased. But who can put the blame on the death penalty? Crime increaes in South Africa each second. We donnot have the death penalty. So we can just aswell say that a less-harsh punishment increases violence too. Undersand my point?

 

Nope I said sports arena because it is a heavily populated location where public executions do take place. But nice assumption.

 

Lots of factors contribute to crime, but generally speaking someone raised around violence is more likely to commit violent crimes. South Africa has a number of problems, a lot of political and social problems that can contribute to that. Would the death penalty solve that problem? no, if anything it would increase it.

Actuaully the death penalty in South Africa might just solve more problems than it would cause. Hard to beleive, but true. As i said, when we had the death penalty our crime rates were muc lower.

 

Aslo, Bloodstain, i didn't do any research at all. None was required. Why waste time writing about the USA and Middle East when it would have 0 effect on anything else i write? The essay is about crime reduction, not the economy.

 

I do find it to be hard to beleive. Can you prove your point, that the death penalty lowers crime rates and that other social factors may not have contributed to those crime rates decreasing?

Well, i'm sure i can dig up a few things on the net. I do remember a few points i made in my essay that contributes to this but at the moment quoting them is not possible. Also there are other factors that played a roll in the increase but the death penalty was the biggest. It is rather suspect that the moment it is taken away the crime rate starts going up.

[stevepole]

Let's keep it friendly guys, no need for name calling.

[Noxx]

You know next to nothing/did zero research on your own topic. You need to leave for a while and educate yourself

And you have made how many valid points. hmmmm...o :thumbup:

[Bloodstain]

You know next to nothing/did zero research on your own topic. You need to leave for a while and educate yourself

And you have made how many valid points. hmmmm...o :thumbup:

 

All my valid points that I felt needed to be said were posted in my first post. The fact that you probably didn't know any of them is pretty telling.

[Alg]

How come murder rates aren't impacted at all by having a death penalty, and why do some states that have the death penalty have HIGHER rates of homicide than their neighboring states that don't have the death penalty?

 

blue: Abolished for all crimes

green: Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)

orange: Abolished in practice

pink: Legal form of punishment for certain offenses

 

All the death penalty achieves is retribution that people think for some reason needs to happen

Critical research failure time!

 

You may want to pair that map with one that shows the rate of homicides. All your map shows is which countries still have the death penalty as an option.

Here you go.

Grey means that no stats are available, at least to the almighty Wiki.

Pale blue is 0-1 homicides per 100,000

The light purplish one is 1-2

Next darkest is 2-5

The 'pure' blue ("#0000FF") is 5-10

The dark indigo one is 10-20

Darkest one is 20+

 

You'll see that countries such as Brazil and Russia have high homicide rates in spite of having the death penalty abolished except for certain circumstances and in practice, respectively.

You'll see that Mexico and Canada, which both have the death penalty abolished, have similar homicide rates (In Mexico's case, higher) to neighboring US states that may still use the death penalty. The same goes for much of Central America.

Oh look, South Africa doesn't run the death penalty and is in the 20+ tier. Who denied that, again?

 

Please do a fact check. Don't just turn your posts into a political statement masquerading as the truth.

 

You're right though. As the chart shows, they aren't impacted at all by whether or not a country runs the death penalty. Could it be that *gasp* there are other factors that go into the rate of violent crime?

[Noxx]

How come murder rates aren't impacted at all by having a death penalty, and why do some states that have the death penalty have HIGHER rates of homicide than their neighboring states that don't have the death penalty?

 

blue: Abolished for all crimes

green: Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)

orange: Abolished in practice

pink: Legal form of punishment for certain offenses

 

All the death penalty achieves is retribution that people think for some reason needs to happen

Critical research failure time!

 

You may want to pair that map with one that shows the rate of homicides. All your map shows is which countries still have the death penalty as an option.

Here you go.

Grey means that no stats are available, at least to the almighty Wiki.

Pale blue is 0-1 homicides per 100,000

The light purplish one is 1-2

Next darkest is 2-5

The 'pure' blue ("#0000FF") is 5-10

The dark indigo one is 10-20

Darkest one is 20+

 

You'll see that countries such as Brazil and Russia have high homicide rates in spite of having the death penalty abolished except for certain circumstances and in practice, respectively.

You'll see that Mexico and Canada, which both have the death penalty abolished, have similar homicide rates (In Mexico's case, higher) to neighboring US states that may still use the death penalty. The same goes for much of Central America.

Oh look, South Africa doesn't run the death penalty and is in the 20+ tier. Who denied that, again?

 

Please do a fact check. Don't just turn your posts into a political statement masquerading as the truth.

 

You're right though. As the chart shows, they aren't impacted at all by whether or not a country runs the death penalty. Could it be that *gasp* there are other factors that go into the rate of violent crime?

<3:

[Bloodstain]

You'll see that countries such as Brazil and Russia have high homicide rates in spite of having the death penalty abolished except for certain circumstances and in practice, respectively.

You'll see that Mexico and Canada, which both have the death penalty abolished, have similar homicide rates (In Mexico's case, higher) to neighboring US states that may still use the death penalty. The same goes for much of Central America.

Oh look, South Africa doesn't run the death penalty and is in the 20+ tier. Who denied that, again?

 

I don't see how I was wrong. I never said having it abolished would decrease crime. Fact still stands, having capital punishment does not decrease homicide. US & Canada have similar homicide rates. So if the death penalty were actually effective, US would have less homicide in death penalty states. Again, how was what I said wrong? Your map doesn't show that death penalty = effective deterrent, which is what I was arguing against

 

e: Also I was trying to make the point that the vast majority of first world countries are against death penalty.

[Alg]

I posted the map in response to:

and why do some states that have the death penalty have HIGHER rates of homicide than their neighboring states that don't have the death penalty?

The map shows the opposite. States have, as you have just acknowledged, similar rates and in some cases HIGHER rates of violent crime. Look at western Mexico (No penalty) and California (Does have the death penalty). Look at South Africa and its neighbors. Look at China and Russia. Hell, Saudi Arabia has the death penalty and a homicide rate lower than many European countries.

 

The point of my post was that you failed to do anything other than show which countries have the death penalty in place, while claiming that countries that do have the death penalty have a higher rate of violent crime. When the actual numbers for homicides come in, your statement is completely wrong.

 

I'm arguing that there's more to homicide than whether or not a country runs the death penalty, and that judging all countries the same way (Read: against our own) is ethnocentric.

[Bloodstain]

I posted the map in response to:

and why do some states that have the death penalty have HIGHER rates of homicide than their neighboring states that don't have the death penalty?

The map shows the opposite. States have, as you have just acknowledged, similar rates and in some cases HIGHER rates of violent crime. Look at western Mexico (No penalty) and California (Does have the death penalty). Look at South Africa and its neighbors. Look at China and Russia.

 

The point of my post was that you failed to do anything other than show which countries have the death penalty in place, while claiming that countries that do have the death penalty have a higher rate of violent crime. When the actual numbers for homicides come in, your statement is completely wrong.

 

How do you confuse states with countries? It may have been a little unclear in my post, but the state part should have given away that I was referring to USA states, as those are actually right next to each other geographically and differ on the death penalty

[Bloodstain]

Here OP, maybe you can learn a few things and some arguing points

 

http://forum.tip.it/topic/245674-capital-punishment-right-or-wrong/

[Alg]

How do you confuse states with countries? It may have been a little unclear in my post, but the state part should have given away that I was referring to USA states, as those are actually right next to each other geographically and differ on the death penalty

It would have been helpful to know this two posts ago. People use "States" to refer to both countries and the United States' "States".

[Bloodstain]

How do you confuse states with countries? It may have been a little unclear in my post, but the state part should have given away that I was referring to USA states, as those are actually right next to each other geographically and differ on the death penalty

It would have been helpful to know this two posts ago. People use "States" to refer to both countries and the United States' "States".

 

Should have clarified that in my post, sorry

[Alg]

No harm done.

[Noxx]

How is that an ignorant statement?

 

Politically incorrect yes, but I was not wrong to say that. I can dig up dozens of live videos of public executions in those countries, national policy on death penalty (including being some of the only countries in the world who's governments still allow beheading as a form of execution) or news reports of such incidents.

 

 

After typing "public executions in the middle east" on google, here is the first article I grabbed.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6927434.stm

 

BBC news, so it is a creditable news source

 

 

 

My point still stands violence creates more violence, not solves the problem.

It's not what you said, but the way you said it. Making it sound like a sport. Like something they do for fun, which clearly it's not. Also that article said 177 death/year. Thats still a very small number. And yes, it increased. But who can put the blame on the death penalty? Crime increaes in South Africa each second. We donnot have the death penalty. So we can just aswell say that a less-harsh punishment increases violence too. Undersand my point?

 

Nope I said sports arena because it is a heavily populated location where public executions do take place. But nice assumption.

 

Lots of factors contribute to crime, but generally speaking someone raised around violence is more likely to commit violent crimes. South Africa has a number of problems, a lot of political and social problems that can contribute to that. Would the death penalty solve that problem? no, if anything it would increase it.

Actuaully the death penalty in South Africa might just solve more problems than it would cause. Hard to beleive, but true. As i said, when we had the death penalty our crime rates were muc lower.

 

Aslo, Bloodstain, i didn't do any research at all. None was required. Why waste time writing about the USA and Middle East when it would have 0 effect on anything else i write? The essay is about crime reduction, not the economy.

 

I do find it to be hard to beleive. Can you prove your point, that the death penalty lowers crime rates and that other social factors may not have contributed to those crime rates decreasing?

Well, i'm sure i can dig up a few things on the net. I do remember a few points i made in my essay that contributes to this but at the moment quoting them is not possible. Also there are other factors that played a roll in the increase but the death penalty was the biggest. It is rather suspect that the moment it is taken away the crime rate starts going up.

 

Please do. I want you to conclusively show that adding the death penalty was the biggest factor in lowering crime rates.

 

Otherwise I could just take the humanitarian approach saying "a life is a life, even a scumbag murderer shouldnt be executed"

Wait till the 11th? Then i'll be able to provide you with enough information.