Bring back Capital punishment?

[Tigra00]

Killing someone does not cost more than keepig them for life. A life sentance, despite it's name, is 60 years. That's 6 million dollars. I've heard before that killing someone costs 2+ millions dollars, but there is a very easy step to cut that down - Stop being PC pansies. You don't have to drag these guys out in the street and let people stone them to death, but how about not putting them on "Death Row" for 10 years? What the hell is the point of that? I'm almost positive that is part of the cost, because Potassium Nitrate doesn't cost 2 million dollars per shot, and the last meal isn't at a 5-star resturaunt. Better yet, skip the Potassium Nitrate and go straight for the ole' rope and a bucket method. No really, I'm serious. People think it's so very cruel to hang someone, but if you watched Saddam's execution, it's quick and painless. Lethal injection takes a long time, and sometimes doesn't even work right away and they struggle to breathe. A properly-placed noose will snap the spinal cord and the executed party will have died instantly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you know, just keep wasting everyone's money keeping animals alive in cages. If you're going to act as if you were a wild animal, perhaps you should be treated as one and put down swiftly. What we do with them is the equivalent of poking a wolf in a cage with a stick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People are going to think I'm deranged and harsh, but really - Do you enjoy keeping these people alive with your tax dollars? Like I said, if they're going to act like an uncivilized beast, they can be dealt with like one - Killed and...Well, not eaten, of course...Perhaps just bury them. :P The thing you have to remember is that people on Death Row are not there because they stole candy. They are there because they're rapists, murderers and the like. Those people do not deserve to be coddled like they did nothing wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...But then again, I'm a firm believer that people who commit non-violent crimes shouldn't even have to go to prison, because they're not a threat, but meh. I always thought it was a place for dangerous people. If you're a threat to others, you go there. I can't see the general thought process making it a good idea to put someone in prison because they, I dunno'...Didn't pay taxes. That's not violent, it's not a danger, just garner their wages and make them pay - With interest.

[warri0r45]

Killing someone does not cost more than keepig them for life. A life sentance, despite it's name, is 60 years. That's 6 million dollars. I've heard before that killing someone costs 2+ millions dollars, but there is a very easy step to cut that down - Stop being PC pansies. You don't have to drag these guys out in the street and let people stone them to death, but how about not putting them on "Death Row" for 10 years? What the hell is the point of that? I'm almost positive that is part of the cost, because Potassium Nitrate doesn't cost 2 million dollars per shot, and the last meal isn't at a 5-star resturaunt. Better yet, skip the Potassium Nitrate and go straight for the ole' rope and a bucket method. No really, I'm serious. People think it's so very cruel to hang someone, but if you watched Saddam's execution, it's quick and painless. Lethal injection takes a long time, and sometimes doesn't even work right away and they struggle to breathe. A properly-placed noose will snap the spinal cord and the executed party will have died instantly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you know, just keep wasting everyone's money keeping animals alive in cages. If you're going to act as if you were a wild animal, perhaps you should be treated as one and put down swiftly. What we do with them is the equivalent of poking a wolf in a cage with a stick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People are going to think I'm deranged and harsh, but really - Do you enjoy keeping these people alive with your tax dollars? Like I said, if they're going to act like an uncivilized beast, they can be dealt with like one - Killed and...Well, not eaten, of course...Perhaps just bury them. :P The thing you have to remember is that people on Death Row are not there because they stole candy. They are there because they're rapists, murderers and the like. Those people do not deserve to be coddled like they did nothing wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...But then again, I'm a firm believer that people who commit non-violent crimes shouldn't even have to go to prison, because they're not a threat, but meh. I always thought it was a place for dangerous people. If you're a threat to others, you go there. I can't see the general thought process making it a good idea to put someone in prison because they, I dunno'...Didn't pay taxes. That's not violent, it's not a danger, just garner their wages and make them pay - With interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree there. I think those that commit crimes such as tax evasion and other non violent crimes should be made to repay thier debt twice over; either monitarily or with community service. Imagine the deterrant of being broke and having no social life for the rest of your life because you cheated disabled and elderly people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me edit this idea ever so slightly. Those who are the victims should be repayed by the perpatrator twice over, either monitarily or though community service. Anyway, just an idea.

[Necromagus]

...But then again, I'm a firm believer that people who commit non-violent crimes shouldn't even have to go to prison, because they're not a threat, but meh.

I believe the people behind Enron are worse than Ted Bundy (no, not the shoesalesman from TV. He used a shoehorn once, but I won't tell you how).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that capital punishment as a system of punishment is based on an irrationally primordial thirst for revenge. If you are so eager to hurt a human being, I'd say destroying his mind by locking him up away from everything he loves and cares about is a lot more efficient than a quick death. If you spend money on death row, he basically costs just as much as he would if he'd be in a normal jail cell. If you don't spend money on death row by executing him immediately, you're denying him the right to fight for his life in court. Either way, there is always a chance that you could convict an innocent man.

[Celt23]

I stopped reading Amnesty International's reason after the first sentance. It's a denial of human rights? Uhhh, yea? And the people it is imposed upon are denied their rights because they denied other human's their rights. Eye for and Eye...Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who had someone they loved killed by some psycho would immediately want the guilty party to be killed. If you do not; Congratulations, you are Jesus Christ incarnate. For the rest of us who are not water-walking deity's, we'll surely want justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I feel them sitting in prison and rotting is MUCH more harsh, but it also costs me money (Prisoner's cost $100,000/year to keep, coming from taxes), so I'd rather that person be killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't read the good parts, it answers those arguments.

[Tigra00]

 

...But then again, I'm a firm believer that people who commit non-violent crimes shouldn't even have to go to prison, because they're not a threat, but meh.

I believe the people behind Enron are worse than Ted Bundy (no, not the shoesalesman from TV. He used a shoehorn once, but I won't tell you how).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that capital punishment as a system of punishment is based on an irrationally primordial thirst for revenge. If you are so eager to hurt a human being, I'd say destroying his mind by locking him up away from everything he loves and cares about is a lot more efficient than a quick death. If you spend money on death row, he basically costs just as much as he would if he'd be in a normal jail cell. If you don't spend money on death row by executing him immediately, you're denying him the right to fight for his life in court. Either way, there is always a chance that you could convict an innocent man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...The guy on the TV show was Al Bundy. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Enron guys hurt other people. They deserved prison. Tax evasion, for example, hurts noone. It's such a tiny amount of money, relatively speaking, that it just doesn't matter.

[Tigra00]

 

I stopped reading Amnesty International's reason after the first sentance. It's a denial of human rights? Uhhh, yea? And the people it is imposed upon are denied their rights because they denied other human's their rights. Eye for and Eye...Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who had someone they loved killed by some psycho would immediately want the guilty party to be killed. If you do not; Congratulations, you are Jesus Christ incarnate. For the rest of us who are not water-walking deity's, we'll surely want justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I feel them sitting in prison and rotting is MUCH more harsh, but it also costs me money (Prisoner's cost $100,000/year to keep, coming from taxes), so I'd rather that person be killed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't read the good parts, it answers those arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What did they say, they ole' two wrongs don't make a right crap?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are twisted creatures. If someone killed, say, your wife (assume you had one), you may say right now that you wouldn't want them killed, but when it happened, you'd put in a request to be the executioner yourself. :P Like I said, rotting is prison is way worse than dying, but there's that little thing called "Wrath" that people love so much...

[Celt23]

I'll quote them for you. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surely a person who commits an horrendous crime or who kills another individual deserves to die?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. Additionally, all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last-minute decision on clemency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central to human rights is that they are inalienable -- they are accorded equally to every individual regardless of status, ethnicity, religion or origin. They may not be taken away from anyone regardless of the crimes a person has committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they are there to protect all of us. They save us from ourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here's some more:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you say to the argument that the death penalty is an important tool for a state to fight crime?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996, concluded: "... research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crimes are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis as a basis for public policy on the death penalty. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And some more:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it necessary to execute certain prisoners in order to prevent them from repeating their crimes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who were innocent will be executed. The death penalty will not prevent them from repeating a crime which they did not commit in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is also impossible to determine whether those executed would actually have repeated the crimes of which they were convicted. Execution entails taking the lives of prisoners to prevent hypothetical future crimes many of which would never have been committed anyway. It negates the principle of rehabilitation of offenders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are those who argue that imprisonment alone has not prevented individuals who have been imprisoned from offending again once set free. The answer is to review the parole procedures in place with a view to preventing relapses into crime. The answer is certainly not to increase the number of executions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[insane]

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's pretty sad that Amnesty int'l uses logical fallacies in their responses. They're equivocating killing with murder - that's ridiculous.

[warri0r45]

 

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's pretty sad that Amnesty int'l uses logical fallacies in their responses. They're equivocating killing with murder - that's ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And justice with injustice.

[Celt23]

 

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's pretty sad that Amnesty int'l uses logical fallacies in their responses. They're equivocating killing with murder - that's ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Murder and killing are synonyms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how is it justice if the person who recieved the death penalty is proven innocent and it cannot be corrected? Unless you got very hard evidence like a video of the crime, that's gambling, not justice. It's relying on the opinion of the judge or jury. A sentance to prison from anywhere to life would be alot more safe of an option as any mistakes can be corrected and the effect is the same as an excecution, except some people might be angry that they cannot fulfill the instinct of revenge. Revenge is nothing but an arbitarary instinct that should not take part in laws.

[paul_wilson]

 

As for capital punishment I am against it. Lock murderers in a 2x2 dark room for the rest of their lives. Sensory deprivation for the rest of their life seems good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is a rapist, castrate him THEN lock him in a hole for the rest of his life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A life for a life is not how it should work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

It's a waste of money, time and effort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they don't deserve to see the light of day again, Then there is no point locking them up for the rest of their life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you don't kill people. Simple as that. Everyone has the right to life no matter what they do, the quality of that life is another matter entirely.