Death Penalty

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 4, 2006, 4:41 pm

I want to revisit the concept in light of some of the crimes we have seen occur lately. While the childkillers have at least spared society of paying to convict, house and execute them it does make me wonder.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 4, 2006, 4:47 pm

Yah I voted against based on religion. Not so much because they tell me it is wrong but rather I feel it is wrong. I am all for cruel and unusual punishment though so long as it fits the crime.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 4, 2006, 5:07 pm

Death for all strong cases of premeditated murder...DNA evidence etc. That means the murderer can't be insane. If they're batshit insane, just lock them up for life and conduct experiments on them or find a way to harvest energy from them like in the Matrix.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 4, 2006, 5:08 pm

Too much grey between options...

Neost · Post by **Neost** » October 4, 2006, 5:15 pm

Yeah, i voted with the majority so far but it took a minute to think it through.

For instance, a drunk driver crosses the median and hits a school bus killing many, many kids.

That fucker oughta hang, right?

but where does that fall in the choices? It isn't premeditated, it is sort of an accident but then the guy was drinking and driving, which is a crime.

Lots of gray areas...

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 4, 2006, 6:02 pm

I voted yes for "Only crimes of a truly evil nature". However, I would only support it if the person had killed more than 1 person on more than 1 seperate occasion, was caught on tape doing it or had a few eye witnesses..

Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty?

Dave Chappelle wrote: Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.

Akanae · Post by **Akanae** » October 4, 2006, 6:29 pm

I used to be all for capital punishment. But, since we don't have (and never will have) a perfect system for catching the true criminal in every case I am on the fence. I wouldn't mind seeing capital punishment for people like child molesters though (if we could really prove they are guilty), three strikes you're dead type of thing.

Al · Post by Al » October 4, 2006, 6:34 pm

I object based on non-religious reasons. I can't condone taking the life of someone who has taken a life. To me it seems like hypocrisy. I don't care what the crime is, killing is killing, whether the law says it's ok or not. Mind you, I was in the military, and I served honorably and proudly. I was certainly playing a part in the deaths of a lot of people, but that was a sacrifice I was willing to make. The good we did was worth the evil it took to get there. I guess that makes me a hypocrite... Oh well.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 4, 2006, 10:48 pm

Against, as it's a waste of money and life imprisonment is worse.

If you can swing instituting Judges that are beyond reproach on flying motorcycles that can cut the appeals process down to a bare minimum, I might reconsider. Sad thing is, the flying motorcycles part is the easier of the two.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 5, 2006, 1:09 am

Zaelath wrote:Against, as it's a waste of money and life imprisonment is worse.

If you can swing instituting Judges that are beyond reproach on flying motorcycles that can cut the appeals process down to a bare minimum, I might reconsider. Sad thing is, the flying motorcycles part is the easier of the two.

Would they all have to look like Sylvester Stallone?

noel · Post by **noel** » October 5, 2006, 1:13 am

If there was a way to fairly expedite I'd be even more in favor. As it is, I'm fine with it for any violent crime of a severe nature and any premeditated murder. Personally I'd add rape to the list as well.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 5, 2006, 4:13 am

Objected for non religious reasons.

I just sort of feel that in theory, if a killer deserves to die and the state kills him, then paradoxically all members of that state become murderers and also deserve to die.

I'm more in favour of a "Katie's revenge" style prison life for violent murderers/rapists. Let the fuckers suffer for their actions instead of a cop out like offing them.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 5, 2006, 5:22 am

Nick wrote: I just sort of feel that in theory, if a killer deserves to die and the state kills him, then paradoxically all members of that state become murderers and also deserve to die.

well there's a shocker!

Nick was looking for poll option:

-suck the murder's cock and then give them as much money as they need to live comfortably in their new life after being relocated in a murder's protection program.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 5, 2006, 5:36 am

Way to (as usual) be an absolute fucking retarded shithead Winnow (no one saw that coming

)

Notice the "in theory"? No, you were once again too busy slobbering all over your "reply" button to actually understand anything.

In practice I just feel there are more constructive ways of making someones life hell instead of just killing them off. Was that too "liberal" for a fucking wannabe redneck like yourself?

Oh and by the way dipshit, how exactly do you suck a "murder's" cock? At least try and speak English if you're going to try and make such an asshole of yourself.

Stunning fuckwittery.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 5, 2006, 7:08 am

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » October 5, 2006, 7:18 am

Making a killer suffer seems one just way to handle it, but it also takes a lot of resources to house any criminal. If it can be determined to be premeditated or non-accidental, I'm down with "an eye for an eye".

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 5, 2006, 9:42 am

With DNA evidence helping to create much stronger links to crimes, I am much more in favor of shortening appeals processes and putting all of these fuckers to death.

Canoe · Post by **Canoe** » October 5, 2006, 9:54 am

None of those options were strong enough for me, and too much gray in them, but....

I am for the death penalty for all murders that are non-accidental, but also add in rapists, and child molestors.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 5, 2006, 11:06 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:With DNA evidence helping to create much stronger links to crimes, I am much more in favor of shortening appeals processes and putting all of these fuckers to death.

DNA evidence has probably exonerated more people from death row than it's put there. Also, it's not infalible. Decent article on it here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... death.html

Again, not actually anti-death penalty, but you need to be just a little bit more certain than beyond reasonable doubt, imnsho.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 5, 2006, 11:40 am

I voted for truly evil crimes, to me Child Molester is at the top of that list.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 5, 2006, 12:42 pm

Although I really hate child molestors too, I don't think they deserve the death penalty. Public beating? Sure, but not death. Thats too extreme. With therapy, people will eventually get over it. Being killed, well, no amount of therapy will make things better.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 5, 2006, 12:50 pm

I guess I am the only religious zealot.

I can relate to what Al said too. Being in the military is being indirectly, or in some cases directly, involved in the killing of others. It has an effect on a person in how they view things.

Wiever · Post by **Wiever** » October 5, 2006, 12:51 pm

Lynks wrote: Being killed, well, no amount of therapy will make things better.

Thats a risk I am willing to take!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 5, 2006, 1:10 pm

Lynks wrote:Although I really hate child molestors too, I don't think they deserve the death penalty. Public beating? Sure, but not death. Thats too extreme. With therapy, people will eventually get over it.

Those people are in a fairly small catagory of nearly guaranteed repeat offenders, rapists as well. Either should be brutally and quickly put to death if the evidence is incontrovertible. And I don't mean date rape, or the politician porking a willing 16 year old type cases. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, regardless of what drove the behavior.

Most premeditated violent\heinous crimes? Put them to death immediately if the evidence is airtight, and hold the prosecution accountable and liable for it's accuracy.

I've said it before, long term imprisonment is pointless. Especially for repeat offenders. It's not a deterrent to others and does nothing for anyone but people running for political office. It also seems like it would be a huge detriment to the families of both the victim and the criminal.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 5, 2006, 1:42 pm

Nick wrote: Oh and by the way dipshit, how exactly do you suck a "murder's" cock? At least try and speak English if you're going to try and make such an asshole of yourself.

Bah, I was on my way to bed when I wrote that but couldn't resist! add some "er"s in there!

You cocksuckerer!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 5, 2006, 1:48 pm

Thats the thing, "nearly guaranteed". You can't kill someone for one incident and because he "might" do it again. You can't kill someone because all he did was touch little Timmy's weiner. You can't kill person A and not person B because person A did it to a 13 year old.

You can't let emotions have a say in the law and punishments, you need to use logic.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 5, 2006, 2:13 pm

I would be more pro-death penalty if our laws weren't such a hypocritical mess.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 5, 2006, 2:28 pm

Lynks wrote:You can't let emotions have a say in the law and punishments, you need to use logic.

It's not an emotional issue, it's like taking out the trash.

Your "touching little Timmy's weiner" example is a much milder crime than what I was thinking about, though that person should be monitored long term with court concurance and supervision (which we don't have now). Publicly branding that person a sex criminal for life via an administrative process like many states do is wrong.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 5, 2006, 2:44 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Lynks wrote:You can't let emotions have a say in the law and punishments, you need to use logic.
It's not an emotional issue, it's like taking out the trash.

Your "touching little Timmy's weiner" example is a much milder crime than what I was thinking about, though that person should be monitored long term with court concurance and supervision (which we don't have now). Publicly branding that person a sex criminal for life via an administrative process like many states do is wrong.

Thats the point I'm trying to get across too. You have to use the death penalty on things that are absolute because the result is abosulte. Death is Death. Molesting a child, well, there are different degrees of molestation. Do you kill a person if he penetrates? Or how about if the victim is 13? Or 16? or 18? or 40? Where is the line drawn? There isn't a clear line, thats why you can't use the death penalty in these cases. If you do, people can/will bend the law to escape it or make it happen.

Thats why I said earlier that DP should only be used if you were caught red handed killing someone (regardless of age) on more than 1 occasion.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 5, 2006, 2:46 pm

Can we please refrain from referring to the death penalty as "DP?" It came up before, and while those of us with our minds at least partially in the gutter can find that type of discussion humorous, it takes away from the impact the discussion can have.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » October 5, 2006, 2:52 pm

Boogahz wrote:Can we please refrain from referring to the death penalty as "DP?" It came up before, and while those of us with our minds at least partially in the gutter can find that type of discussion humorous, it takes away from the impact the discussion can have.

Actually, I think DP might just be a suitable penalty for child molesters. DP by Bubba and friend over and over and over.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 5, 2006, 2:55 pm

Boogahz wrote:Can we please refrain from referring to the death penalty as "DP?" It came up before, and while those of us with our minds at least partially in the gutter can find that type of discussion humorous, it takes away from the impact the discussion can have.

Heh ya. As I was typing it, I thought of that too. I just didnt want to type it out in full 1 more time.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 5, 2006, 3:39 pm

I didn't vote because none of the options were worthwhile in my opinion. I think the death penalty needs to be expanded to serial rapists and child molesters. If a person rapes or molests one child then life imprisonment, more than three and they should get the death penalty. I also believe though that there needs to be perfect evidence against the individual being charged. I.e. dna evidence. Not some jail cell informant looking for a deal.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » October 5, 2006, 5:18 pm

Voted no, but that's because my option isn't up there. Basically, since the death penalty is killing BY the state, I believe that only crimes directly AGAINST the state should be penalized by it (i.e. high treason, bombing a government building, assassinating a government official)... and then only by the federal courts. Murder of citizens is NOT within the individual state's discretion (I feel).

Animale

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 5, 2006, 6:42 pm

laneela wrote:Actually, I think DP might just be a suitable penalty for child molesters.

Pineapples FTW!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 5, 2006, 7:33 pm

Aabidano wrote:
laneela wrote:Actually, I think DP might just be a suitable penalty for child molesters.
Pineapples FTW!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 5, 2006, 9:33 pm

Anyone with a brain is against capital punishment for major crimes. It is not a deterrant and costs too much money and way too many man hours in the legal system.

it is an minorly effective deterrant for minor offenses like drug smuggling in the phillipenes or most arab countries, but you can still buy dope in those countries fairly easily. if people are willing to get caught and sentenced to death for having $50 work of blow on them in saudi arabia, do you really think it's going to deter people from killing someone they want dead?

what this planet needs is a big fucking island the whole world can send prisoners to. we fucked it up the first time by letting austrialians join the commonwealth, but I think we should give it another shot.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 5, 2006, 10:01 pm

I was a free settler! Admittedly, they were italians so you still can't trust me. Damn italians.

Al · Post by Al » October 6, 2006, 4:00 am

Sartori wrote:but it also takes a lot of resources to house any criminal.

Fuck that. They spend all day everyday making the bread and tending the garden, then before bed they get to eat some of what they worked on. They don't need electricity. No TV. They don't need 'recess' or books to read. They need food, water, shelter, and maybe some personal health issues like a sewage system. No TV. The reason it costs so much to house an inmate is because we coddle them. Hard time shouldn't be "light time with a chance of gang violence". It should be "hard time". A self-sufficient prison would cost little more than guard wages to keep going.

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » October 6, 2006, 4:17 am

Fuck that. They spend all day everyday making the bread and tending the garden, then before bed they get to eat some of what they worked on. They don't need electricity. No TV. They don't need 'recess' or books to read. They need food, water, shelter, and maybe some personal health issues like a sewage system. No TV. The reason it costs so much to house an inmate is because we coddle them. Hard time shouldn't be "light time with a chance of gang violence". It should be "hard time". A self-sufficient prison would cost little more than guard wages to keep going.

I'm not swayed by your idealism, however I wouldn't mind if it was that way...for those people that wouldn't be getting executed.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 6, 2006, 6:14 am

Al wrote:
Sartori wrote:but it also takes a lot of resources to house any criminal.
Fuck that. They spend all day everyday making the bread and tending the garden, then before bed they get to eat some of what they worked on. They don't need electricity. No TV. They don't need 'recess' or books to read. They need food, water, shelter, and maybe some personal health issues like a sewage system. No TV. The reason it costs so much to house an inmate is because we coddle them. Hard time shouldn't be "light time with a chance of gang violence". It should be "hard time". A self-sufficient prison would cost little more than guard wages to keep going.

Do you really think they get all the crap they do now because the prison system loves them? Or do you think it's to keep them manageable so that you don't need 2 guards per prisoner?

Al · Post by Al » October 7, 2006, 1:04 am

They have all that crap because we let them have it. We let them have it because they used bullying tactics and no one would stand up for "inhumane" retaliation. Give guards shoot-to-kill orders and no prisoner leeway and the only time prisoners would rise up is when the guards let them. Prisons should be oppressive, not the social-hour "this is violating my civil liberties" vacation from society that modern prisons have become. If you don't want the guards being murderers, utilize solitary confinement. Everyone has their own cell, no one sees the light of day until they can behave. If you cause trouble, you're back in solitary. Bottom line is this: prison is no longer the hell it used to be because we decided they have the same rights as you or I. I believe that the moment you rape someone, you forfeit your civil liberties. We spend far too much money keeping murdering assclowns happy, and not enough money punishing them for their crimes.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 7, 2006, 1:16 am

you have a real interesting idea about what prison life is like. do you get all your notions from prison break?

Al · Post by Al » October 7, 2006, 4:07 am

Never watched it. I don't really watch much TV at all... I will say this, though: If you were convicted of a horrible crime in any medieval system, you would do hard time. These days hard time involves visits from your family and daily exercise in the courtyard. Prison is still a deterrent, but it is not what it should be. We don't have gang violence holding cities under what amounts to siege because our criminal justice system works. We have that problem because the opposite is true. In 2004, Buffalo alone had nearly double the national average in virtually every major crime category. If our system worked (meaning: it doesn't need to be perfect, just efficient) this would not even be close to the case. I have watched crime rise every year since I can remember, and I can only come to the conclusion that it is happeneing because what we are doing now is different from what we did 50 years ago. Why don't we have chain gangs? Not because it didn't work, but because it was deemed cruel punishment. Why don't we have prisons with absolute authority over the inmates? Not because it didn't work...

I grew up with "If you do the crime, you'd better be ready to do the time". Now "the time" is much easier than it has been in the past.

This isn't to say there aren't social societal issues that could help to stem the rise in crime. If we did more to alleviate poverty, I would imagine it would have a beneficial effect on crime in our urban areas. If we did something to lessen the viability of drug abuse, it would almost certainly lessen the drag on our justice system.

One more thing. While everything else I said may have been off-the-wall and spurr of the moment, I meant what I said when I said you forfeit your rights when you are convicted of a heinous crime. If you murder someone, what happens to you happens because of your choices in life. Mommy and Daddy didn't make you take a gun to school, and the ghetto didn't make you a drug dealer. We are all entitled to basic human liberties. Freedom of choice is one of those liberties. The downside is you must live with your choices. If I choose not to wear a rubber tomorrow when I bang some skank at the bar, I need to be prepared to deal with 18 years of nagging and child support, and maybe an itch and a burning sensation when I pee.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 7, 2006, 4:39 am

Prisons are supposed to attempt to rehabilitate inmates. Starving them and working them like slaves on chain gangs and allowing guards to exectute them (haha, you know that most prison guards are one step away from being inmates themselves right?) doesn't rehabilitate people.

Americans like to think that their prisoners are being punished and not rehabilitated for some reason. Outright punishing somoene who is already at the very least socially and probably mentally unstable is just going to make them angrier.

You seem to have this funny mental image of inmates sitting around out in the sunshine smoking marlboros and playing catch with their friend. Most prisons are very brutal places that work you like a dog and have very complex and extremely dangerous social structures.

Inmates get access to things like TV, family/conjugal visits, outdoor priviledges and better jobs if they behave themselves. This is the simplest form of positive reinforcement there is, and it teaches people that if they are nice, then people are nice back to them. I utterly fail to see how this is a bad thing.

If you look at other penal systems in Canada or Europe or Australia, the length of sentences and rate of recidivism is much, much lower than in a country like the US, China or the USSR,

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 7, 2006, 9:03 am

We're not putting people in maximum security for dealing in dimebags either.. but, yes, yes. Not only should you be putting them in max for pushing (lol) crack, but you should beat and, should they talk back, kill them as well. Breathing's too good for them!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 7, 2006, 6:05 pm

against,,,its simple, here are some facts

-it is CHEAPER to keep a prisoner behind bars for life then it is to execute them

-it is imho a much worse punishment (and more humane!) to sit in a cell your entire life then it is to be executed

-the system is not fair...you can kill 10 people in a very cruel manner in townA and based on the local laws/ judge/ financial background you may serve 30 years of a life sentence in a population prision setting, if you kill 1 person in townB you can be sitting in isolation for 20 years only to face execution

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 7, 2006, 8:05 pm

Xzion wrote:against,,,its simple, here are some facts

-it is CHEAPER to keep a prisoner behind bars for life then it is to execute them

I see this mentioned all the time like it's some kind of shocker. It may be more expensive now the way it's handled but it doesn't have to be more expensive. It can be very cheap and even make money for the government if it's pay per view. In fact, the curiousity of the first PPV killing would make so much money, it would probably pay for the next several hundred executions.

Keeping someone in a prison cell for life is just stupid. Either put them to work, make them medical guinea pigs, or kill them, either cheaply or snaz it up for PPV. Give the person sentenced to death the choice of a quick painless death or a chance to go out in style on a Running Man type show and then they can choose to give a small portion of the proceeds to family or whoever, while the rest of it is split up paying for legal fees, production costs, and a fund set aside to pay for future killings...or treat it like lotteries and put the money back into school programs, etc. A dedication plaque could read, "Springville Highschool's new computer room was paid for by the execution of Jeff Dahmer."

If the person sentenced to death chooses to work, devise an implant that can be remotely triggered to kill them instantly if they get out of line or escape.

Even ignoring the possible money making strategies and creation of useful work/experiment jobs for willing death row convicts, there are so many cheap ways to kill a person, the red tape just needs to be reduced. If a life sentenced prisoner wants to have TV privileges, then they need to offer themselves up for some useful new drug testing.

Cheaper to keep a prisoner behind bars...yeah right.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 7, 2006, 8:19 pm

PPV isn't going to cover the legal costs of the lengthy appeals process on top of the 20+ years housing on death row. Even if you really thought your compatriots were so ghoulish as to plunk down cash for the priviledge (execution was very popular in the past as free entertainment), I doubt such a broadcast would break even on the production costs.

Now, if you combine Judge Dredd with COPS, you might be on to something.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 7, 2006, 9:07 pm

Zaelath wrote:PPV isn't going to cover the legal costs of the lengthy appeals process on top of the 20+ years housing on death row.

Lewis-Tyson PPV event in 2002 made $103 million. The first execution would make at least double that. Exactly how much are these court costs?

A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life."

"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."

(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

Hmm $2.16-3.2 million per execution. That's chump change and that's at the current bloated price. Streamline it and it will drop quite a bit.

Subtract the $680,000 it costs for life in prisonment from the 3.2 million for an execution and you need to make about 2.5 million per PPV event...that's 64,102 viewers needed at $39/per. If a boxing match can get $103 million at 49.00 per household, I think an execution would double that, thus setting up the government for the next 60 or so executions after overhead costs.

VeeshanVault

Death Penalty

Death Penalty - What is your opinion?

Death Penalty