If some one has killed more then 1 person he or she should be killed. I don't want to support a liffer that are better ways to spend tax money. Make it painless but serial killers got to go byby.
And all of the other prisoners have to be used as manual labor to do stuff. New tecknology can be easily used to track and even kill people if needed i know I'm a future engineer and it is in not developed yet tell me i need a sumer project lol.
Not all killers deserve to be killed because some of the people are wrongfully comited
Oleg: you may not want to support a lifer, but you also end up paying about 5 times the amount to kill them also.
The other option sounds nice on the face, but its also considered Cruel and unusual. Tracking systems can't be implanted. I'm a current engineer, and your summer project would end up never taking off, because of that danged 8th Amendment.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
How many people would change their mind about the death penalty if they understood that executions cost more than life in prison?
I bet a huge number would change their mind. Then we have to ask, why is money the determining factor when it comes to life and death? If you assigned a value to your own life, what would it be?
The justice system is to benefit society as a whole. How does an execution benefit society?
In fact does it not do the opposite by teaching people that sometimes killing is "the right thing to do"? Does this not support the idea that some people "deserve to die" and that sometimes killing is OK? How much does this contribute to the borderline pscho that might not kill if there were no confusion about "justifiable homicide". Some people are easily confused, if it's OK in one circumstance, when else is it OK?
How is the state supposed to uphold the principal that killing is not OK, when their own example is not congruent?
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
hahaha:
Some people do deserve to die, and in cases, killing does benefit society by weeding off the ones that just aren't going to contribute anything constructive.
The fact that it costs more makes me wonder who the hell is managing the money involved.
Personally, anyone IMHO that deserves capital punishment is so obvious that they do indeed deserve it that there should be no need for appeals or the time waiting on death row. In those cases, how much can a death really cost?
But if they want to lock them up for life, i won't lose any sleep over it.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]hahaha:
Some people do deserve to die, and in cases, killing does benefit society by weeding off the ones that just aren't going to contribute anything constructive.
According to who? You? Me? GWB? Madeline Albright? Who sets the standard, who gave them the foresight? That is a pretty big statement, wielding big power. It will be abused.
I'd rather err on the side of caution than make a fatal mistake.
Death without appeal?!?!? OOooooo.....
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
He qualified the remark, Hahahaha.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Oh so there's a time when it obvious someone "deserves" to die? Really? Again, don't ask me to be that judge.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Why is there such a long line for the injection?? It takes, what, 15 minutes to pop that guy full of serum and watch him writhe in pain for a bit before he dies??? God. They should privatize the death sector
its simple, you kill somone, they kill u. its not rocket science.....
Gee, oversimplify much?
What were the circumstances of the death. Was it accidental? Are you sure you have the right perp? Premeditated or crime of passion? Justifiable homicide? Self defence? Under orders from someone else? How deep does it run?
I have asked this one before. If a person is driving under the influence, have an accident and kill someone, is it murder? Should they be executed? Whatever your answers now ask, should every DUI be considered attempted murder?
That said, have you ever had a glass of red wine at dinner (or a beer or whatever) then drove home? Would you have blown over (how about 2 beers). You may be legally impared, but is THAT attempted murder?
See, everything, including murder has degrees of both malice and forethough, mitigating circumstances etc. There is no such thing as a cut and dried murder case. Even a maniac on a killing spree has had something push them to do it.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
89Sunbird wrote:Why is there such a long line for the injection?? It takes, what, 15 minutes to pop that guy full of serum and watch him writhe in pain for a bit before he dies??? God. They should privatize the death sector
The process to get them to the execution chamber is what takes so long.
Tookie had to wait for 18+ years.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I think the death penalty works just fine. However I do think a better punishment would be to live out a full life in prison, but only if they can't ever leave there cell, not even for 15 mins of fresh air, no reading, no nothing. I think thats enough to make a man wish he was dead.
^^^ Again.. 8th amendment.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^^ psshhh. fine, then kill em!
Life Imprisonment is fine by me. You can lose time, but losing your life isn't something you can pay back.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime.
Quote:
"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters)—what am I going to do, hide them?"
I think it would have a much greater deterrent effect if they televised the thing - like it used to in the old days when people where hung publicly in the town square. Seeing something first hand does lend a different perspective than when you simply "hear about things." Sure we all hear about the death penalty - but seeing it happen brings a stark realization of the fact, simply that "man this is for real." Real consequences for real heinous crimes. Kinda like how I know several people who won't even touch alcohol - because they had to prow up watching their parents with severe alcohol problems.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:You can lose time, but losing your life isn't something you can pay back.
I agree(although I don't think that your precious limited time in this world can be payed back either) - but I feel that murders(and would-be-murders) need to be sent that same message. Their victim's lives cannot be restored. If they're so cold blooded and selfish as to care nothing for other people's lives whom they permanently destroy, then perhaps they will at least care for their own. If they know that their own lives will also be forfeit, perhaps they'll think again before killing someone else.
Don't get me wrong - I think the death penalty system - and the entire legal system for that matter - needs SERIOUS reform. The burden of proof needs to be ABSOLUTE - BEYOND ANY POSSIBILITY OF INNOCENCE - no matter how small or unlikely that possibility is - in order to sentence someone to die. One person wrongly executed is too many - and sadly the statistics of this are far worse. But much like a car in disrepair(where some want to toss it while others wanna pretend that it isn't broke) - it can still be salvaged and beneficial to the common good, so I'd rather fix it than throw it away.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Two studies versus about 15. As well, I find it odd that there's no mention of New York and Kansas having an increased murder rate (that actually outstrips population growth) every year since 1994/1995 when they respectively re-adopted the death penalty. They also don't go state-by-state and look at population density and availability of weapons (like handguns), nor whether each state has the death penalty in the first place.
There's huge, huge suppositions that are being passed off as fact. You can't make mistakes like that and expect credibility.
I'll tell you a little secret also BK3K: there's no such thing as 100% absolute with criminal testimony or forensic evidence. DNA results are given with ratios, and anything over 6-7 billion : 1 is deemed to be consistent (until there's a possibility of a twin, that basically turns DNA into 3rd string evidence)... Fingerprint evidence is subject to interpretation, and can only be deemed consistent... Hell, video evidence isn't even certain, and don't get me started on eye-witness testimony.
The point is that there is always a possibility of non-culpability, the normal modus operandi is to bring to bare enough evidence to meet a States' Jury requirement to convict. They don't have to prove anyone else but the named person(s) did the act, and they have to provide something concrete to base that predilection on. I work in forensics, and to be honest, I wouldn't want a conviction and death sentence to be hung solely on my word in the interpretation of evidence without more corroborating evidence.
The Judicial system needs work to keep up, but in all honesty, if you remove the jeopardy of the Death Penalty, you'll see a lot more cases work out properly without having to worry about a set date for execution. If you want to see things done fairly: Both the Prosecution and Defence are publicly paid employees... You may not pay for more legal defence... That would prevent another OJ or Kobe circus from happening, the only way that it can happen equally though, is to make it as bad to falsely report an incident.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]I'm all for cruel and unusual punishment, so i think that it's okay.
If you're proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, then i think what you did happens to you.
Guy sodomizes a 3-year old boy, guys gets a lamppost rammed up his pooper via a diesel locomotive.
Guy skins his victims alive, we sharpen up the potato peelers.
x2 and then some.
also..no more TV, weightlifting, etc in prisons. im sure if i had a good list of what they are allowed id be eliminating many more. i like the old french system..a cold dark stone building with no comforts or conveniences. i would also do nothing to curb prison violence..it thins out the population with no outside effort. oh, and yard riots/fights would be quelled with automatic weapons fire...so if your not a part of it...better be heading for a corner...
course this is for real hardened prison type stuff...regular jails i wouldnt change too much.
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?
Join verbalwarfare.com
http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86
^^^^^^^^^^
I'm with you on having much more harsh prisons. I'd do away with TV, radio, etc for prisoners. The only thing I'd allow them to do is read - nonfiction that is. I'd only allow them access to educational books and religious scriptures(and by that I don't mean "religious" editorial books that tell you what the author think the meaning of each passage is etc).
But you did contradict yourself with "i would also do nothing to curb prison violence" and "fights would be quelled with automatic weapons fire" since I think that would curb violence lol.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
The only problem is that you're going to turn the inmates into hardened criminals even more than current prisons do. You're quite literally describing Soviet-era Gulags that took in everything from petty criminals to political misfits, to hardened multiple murderers, put them together and turned them into dog meat (quite literally) or made them more efficient.
Rehabbing the ones that can be helped, and keeping the worst of the worst in prison (Canada has a Violent Offender status, that when confirmed allows for certain high-risk offenders to be kept in prison indefinitely) is probably the ultimate solution. I think its part of the reason you're seeing more Super-max prisons being built, to keep the worst contained and away from society. At this point, the thing that most ultra-liberals shout into the deaf ears of most ultra-conservatives is that killing the bad guys off isn't cheap, and it doesn't solve the problem of crime. Long-term warehousing will help the problem after-the-fact and make recidivism less likely, but to me it's more a question of the penny of prevention than the pound of cure.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I'm not sure where my vision for the prison system would "turn the inmates into hardened criminals." Thing is - our current system does that well enough - what better place to learn how to commit crime "X" than prison? Where else are you gonna find experts in any criminal pursuit that you can imagine? I'd like to limit social time to a minimum in a controlled environment and it should be monitored(to make sure that no one is teaching robbery, drug trafficing techniques, etc). That would hopefully also cut down on the potential opportunity for inmate violence.
For my idea - prison is anything but enjoyable - making it far less appealing that it already is - and thus a greater deterent to crimes. Now a days a lot of people(I've known many of them) don't think that getting a few years in prison is such a big deal. More on the level of your parents sending you to your room and grounding you from going to some party etc. Some people would rather avoid it but have the attitude of "if it happens - it happens."
Also, in my idea - prisoners would have very little to do to occupy their time except read educational material(and the religious text of their choice if they're so inclined). I'd also probably allow in newspapers too. I also maybe, just maybe - allow limited internet access(which would filter out everything except pre-approved websites). I'd allow access mainly to sites with educational value of some sort - like howstuffworks.com, wikipedia.org, associatedpress.com, etc. Naturally, that would result in them leaving prison alot more educated and informed - which anyone can agree is a good thing.
I might also allow them to work some in-prison jobs if they want too(although only for minimum wage and no more - if there is a profit then it can go to fund the prison instead of tax-dollars). They'd be payed(or their family would in case they die) what they earned on the same day that they leave prison. That would leave no money for getting contraband etc while in prison, as well as providing them something to start out with when they're released so they don't need to fall back on "previous ways" to get started on the outside. I'd also concentrate on making those in-prison jobs something that will teach them a trade that they can use on the outside - like welding for example.
I'd like to see prisons turn criminals into productive members of society and also provide a strong deterent to crime. That is exactly what it is supposed to do but I don't believe that the US prison system in its current form does either of these. As ism it is a total failure and a massive waste of money. It does nothing to make things better except to simply isolate most of the criminals from the rest of society - and in most cases this is only temporary fix since many whom are released from prisons are still criminals at heart - maybe even more than when they went in.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Ahh.. you needed to elaborate a little.
Either way: there's already many prisons that have automatic weapons to deter inmate insurrection, but that is usually limited to individuals on the outer walls, and even then, they're changing these to Directed Energy Weapons (like the ones used on some cruise ships and oil vessels and a bunch of US warships use), and even man-portable weapons are becoming available for the most troublesome people. The thing is, you don't want to kill them if you can help it any.
Other than that, Limited access to the net is fine, but what happens when you get people that are very good at getting around security measures? Realistically, it's not 100% possible to halt these things, but restricting access to other things via wrist band w/pulse monitoring, and making the bands RFID compliant is a better idea for keeping them out of trouble initially until they got out of the habit of making trouble. The problem arises when you want to give the inmates incentive to become better people instead of better criminals, You have to be able to give them something. There are some prisons (I forget the name of one, but I'll remember at some point) that are not entirely 100% lock-down, but are still maximum security: they're called "retirement homes" by the inmates, but they're for individuals that are doing the right thing, and are progressing along to become re-integrated into society. They're not cheap to build or run, but damn if they have a low recidivism rate.
It's a great idea to try and reform criminals, and to an extent, it works with a large number, but there are some that are recalcitrant, and just won't follow the rules because its right, they'll follow as long as its profitable to them. Then you have to look at long-term warehousing, and IMHO, you have to move them around a bit to keep them from working too deeply into one prison or another.
Help the ones you can help (and that want help) and manage the ones that you can't or don't want help.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Because of legal costs, and bearucratic costs.... all the red tape ect.. Doesn't it not cost more to execute someone rather then keeping them locked up for a life sentence ?
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Yes, you are correct.
Besides, it doesn't work.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Short hand: the rule of thumb is that it costs roughly 33% more to execute an inmate than to keep them for 40 years. (which is far beyond "life" sentences in most states... IIRC Life is 20-25 years, Natural life is until you die, but that varies by state).
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
