Is not the death penalty meant to be a deterrent to stop ppl commiting certain types of crime?
Works well doesn't it

If the penalty worked as it should then i would be for it, my heart aches every time i hear of a child or woman being murdered and or raped / molested and i think those type of crimes should be punishable by severe means but the death penalty system does not work.

Its even worse in other countries outside of the USA, take Iran for example who are quite happy to publicly hang two young men for the 'crime' of being gay.

What the USA needs to do is ban the public owning guns and maybe thier crime rate would fall somewhat and many more innocents need not lose thier pride, dignity or thier lives.

___________________
My Mixcloud Profile My Twitch Channel

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 How can you ever know it was truly was used 'properly'? What consititutes 'proper' changes from year to year & from place to place. I was speaking to a Singaporean guy about this very thing about 2 years ago and he said that over there, they never go to such advanced methods that the US does sometimes with DNA and forensics, that would take years to find out if someone should be exonerated due to insane financial costs, when just killing the person costs less. That's extremely cruel in my book, but if that's how SG & the people of SG's mentality is, I don't think much can change yet. :-( I personally are against the death penalty no matter how much evidence may point to a person commiting a crime, there's always a small degree of doubt. If you kill the person and it turns out, say, 10 years later, that they really didn't commit the crime, how does that look for the society? It would show that we endorse killing people, which I bet isn't what people want to see the society they live in as...

So if it were up to you, you would exonerate Adolf Eichmann to life in prison?

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/

Eichmann, btw has been the only person executed by the state of Israel since its inception.


There are always cases where it is acceptable, hence my previous statement that forbidding it is as stupid as using it all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo Is not the death penalty meant to be a deterrent to stop ppl commiting certain types of crime? Works well doesn't it ... Its even worse in other countries outside of the USA, take Iran for example who are quite happy to publicly hang two young men for the 'crime' of being gay.

I believe that the less developed a country the higher moral justification to use execution. In poor countries, such as Mexico, Columbia, India, Pakistan, etc, you face unsecure very escapable prisons (compared to the west). If you are determined, or have a determined lobby on the outside, escaping is a very real possibility.

Having murderers and rapist walking about is no way to run a society...

Even in the US prison outbreaks from maximum security facility do happen quiet frequently (there was a break about a week ago from a Washington facility I believe).

quote:

What the USA needs to do is ban the public owning guns and maybe thier crime rate would fall somewhat and many more innocents need not lose thier pride, dignity or thier lives.

The USA crime rate has fallen down immensly.
The USA will never ban owning guns for two primary reasons:
1) It is against the constitution
2) The majority of the population support owning gun and believe that a gun ban will result in one thing: only criminals having guns.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 122/1000 is 12.2 %. That's a high number for people exonerated from death row. It's very scarey as well.

Well to be statistically accurate that is the percentage of exonerations vs. those who were executed. To get the number you're looking for you would do 122/(total # people in death row).

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 Life in a maximum-security prison. How does the EU take care of these people?

So that we the taxpayers can continue to waste our hard earned money paying for the ongoing care of a convicted murderer? No thanks, just kill him for me. How about just sending them to a remote, deserted island with a natural, self-sustaining water/food source and let them fend for themselves. Out of sight, out of mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So that we the taxpayers can continue to waste our hard earned money paying for the ongoing care of a convicted murderer? No thanks, just kill him for me. How about just sending them to a remote, deserted island with a natural, self-sustaining water/food source and let them fend for themselves. Out of sight, out of mind.

You do realise it's a lot cheaper to keep someone for life in prison than to execute them (in the US at least)?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew You do realise it's a lot cheaper to keep someone for life in prison than to execute them (in the US at least)?

Yea, I've heard this argument before.
But it really is mystifying, how come?
I mean, even the best doctors cost what? $5000 an hour?
Lets say an execution takes 4 hours, thats $20,000.
Lets say the lethal injection is super good shit that retails for another $30,000.... how would that cost more than life in prison?

I mean even if killing someone was a $250,000 operation, you still have to look at the cost of buying land, building a jail, manning it with security officers (paying them their salaries, benifits, and pensions), adding all the benifits, high-tech gadgets and security, then feeding and clothing the inmates and then mutliplying those figures by the number of years till life.

I'm assuming the numbers that are out for this are comparing the cost of feeding and clothing an inmate vs. killing him, which is only q very small proption of the cost of running a jail.

I guess googling it would help, but I dunno, the argument doesn't make sense. I mean, maybe they should just shoot people to death again to save taxpayer money?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I don't think it is the execution per se that costs, but the trial and appeals leading up to it.

Plus most ppl are on death row like 10 years anyway, which means you still have to pay that much in prison time.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew You do realise it's a lot cheaper to keep someone for life in prison than to execute them (in the US at least)?

I don't realize that. And I don't buy it. Maybe it's cheaper to keep an 85 year old murderer in prison for life, but I think that argument is a lot of hooha from anti-capital punishment folks. Just strap them into the chair and pull the switch. Or kindly drop them off at my remote desert island and let them do their thing. Either way, they are a burden on society in prison and it is a load of crap that good, hardworking people should have to pay to support the life of someone who is undeserving of life. And our prisons are overcrowded, so it makes sense to do something to thin out their numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't realize that. And I don't buy it. Maybe it's cheaper to keep an 85 year old murderer in prison for life, but I think that argument is a lot of hooha from anti-capital punishment folks. Just strap them into the chair and pull the switch. Or kindly drop them off at my remote desert island and let them do their thing. Either way, they are a burden on society in prison and it is a load of crap that good, hardworking people should have to pay to support the life of someone who is undeserving of life. And our prisons are overcrowded, so it makes sense to do something to thin out their numbers.

Okay, these figures are from a Swedish political party (they are against capital punnishment). Anyway, according to them it costs about 2 million USD to execute someone in the US, while it only costs about 450 000 USD to keep someone for life in prison. So it's almost 5 times as expensive to execute someone, guess that's waste of tax payers money?

If you could prove me wrong, that would be interesting (esp since it would be fun putting down on that political party I got the figures from ). If not it's cool too cause then I was right

from what I've found online (all from anti-cap sites btw) it looks like death sentance is anywhere from 2 - 5 times as expensive as life in prison.

However ALL of these estimates take into effect court (lawyer) costs because people who are on death row apparently get some 10,000 chances to appeal where as if you are sentanced to life in prison without parole I guess you just get your normal 3 chances.


All this means is that the justice system is going beyond its normal way to make sure those it executes are guilty and it could care less whether those in for life are or not

sorta sad

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Okay, these figures are from a Swedish political party (they are against capital punnishment). Anyway, according to them it costs about 2 million USD to execute someone in the US, while it only costs about 450 000 USD to keep someone for life in prison. So it's almost 5 times as expensive to execute someone, guess that's waste of tax payers money? If you could prove me wrong, that would be interesting (esp since it would be fun putting down on that political party I got the figures from ). If not it's cool too cause then I was right

Lol. Well I certainly don't have any specific figures or studies to back me up, but just think about the cost of food, medicine, etc. for a 30 year old in prison. It just seems like good ole' common sense.

Let's just assume a cheap $3 per meal, 3 times per day...(I'll assume the guy lives to be 75, so 45 years of prison)...3 meals per day = 21 meals per week, or just figure about 1100 meals per year at a cost of $3 per meal = about $3300 per year on food alone. multiply that by 45 years and you've got close to $150K in food costs alone. Let alone costs to operate and maintain the prison, healthcare costs, the cost of the property the prison is on, etc. I have no idea what the total is, but 1 bullet at WalMart probably costs about $0.50. One crank of the handle for the electric chair probably uses $50 worth of power at best (again, guessing, but based on my electric bills, I'm sure it's a reasonable assumption). One needle full of potassium chloride is probably less than $50 too. Point is, you can try to throw in all sorts of intangible costs to justify not taking a life away, but if you just think about the math, I don't understand how it could possibly be cheaper to pay for a person that is alive for years vs. a person who no longer exists. Think about it. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. Alive or dead, the court costs apply in both cases so it's a moot point. If you're sustaining someone's life, it costs money. If you don't have to pay to sustain a life that no longer exists, it doesn't cost money. There's your answer. No need for politics. Just use your noggin.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Lol. Well I certainly don't have any specific figures or studies to back me up, but just think about the cost of food, medicine, etc. for a 30 year old in prison. It just seems like good ole' common sense. Let's just assume a cheap $3 per meal, 3 times per day...(I'll assume the guy lives to be 75, so 45 years of prison)...3 meals per day = 21 meals per week, or just figure about 1100 meals per year at a cost of $3 per meal = about $3300 per year on food alone. multiply that by 45 years and you've got close to $150K in food costs alone. Let alone costs to operate and maintain the prison, healthcare costs, the cost of the property the prison is on, etc. I have no idea what the total is, but 1 bullet at WalMart probably costs about $0.50. One crank of the handle for the electric chair probably uses $50 worth of power at best (again, guessing, but based on my electric bills, I'm sure it's a reasonable assumption). One needle full of potassium chloride is probably less than $50 too. Point is, you can try to throw in all sorts of intangible costs to justify not taking a life away, but if you just think about the math, I don't understand how it could possibly be cheaper to pay for a person that is alive for years vs. a person who no longer exists. Think about it. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. Alive or dead, the court costs apply in both cases so it's a moot point. If you're sustaining someone's life, it costs money. If you don't have to pay to sustain a life that no longer exists, it doesn't cost money. There's your answer. No need for politics. Just use your noggin.

I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. BUT the fucking figures are there!!!

Even Yoepus tried to find figures that proved the opposite but didn't find anything. Clearly it is not the execution itself that costs, its the trials leading up to it. But yeah, seems like something is missing...