|
Last Minute Death Row Appeals (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
That's pretty much it, I don't know if I like the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" philosophy that seems to undermine the death penalty as practised in the US at the moment. |
People are lead to think that, but the percentage of people who actually do die from the death penalty is extreemly low in comparision to those who were given the punishment of it.
| quote: | | I think I can see where this is going, I'm going to be in support of imprisonment (albeit managed differently to how it is now, as I think that the prison system in the US, and Australia for that matter, currently has some serious flaws), whilst you're going to argue that the prison system really doesn't work. |
Indeed he's not the only one :)
| quote: | | I agree with your premise, as it stands they do contribute nothing. I would argue that we can rectify this. If the primary function of the prison system is to rehabilitate rather than punish, then surely investing in a prisoner by equipping them with the skills necessary to get a job once they're released is a good thing? |
This is based on the notion that the prisoner will actually be released. Not to mention, you must also think of the masterminds that end up in prison. Many of the mass murderers are extreemly intelligent and the only reason that they had been caught was becase they had made one simple mistake. Giving them the opportunity to be in an area where they could work anywhere, will surely give them the thought to escape. Not many prisoners actually want to be rehabilitated.
| quote: | | Once the prisoner leaves prison, presuming that they do indeed get a job, then I believe that society is reaping the rewards of it's investment. The former prisoner is contributing to society as a direct result of it's investment in the prisoner, in the form of his education within the prison environment. |
You have to understand, that the possibilities of such an event occuring is slim to none. Most prisoners are given an opportunity in employment once their term is served, but more often than not, they fail their parole officer meetings or are incapable of keeping said job. Plus, with America in the horrible job situation it is in right now, to guarantee jobs to criminals when regular citizens are having difficulties finding a job seems a tad unbalanced.
| quote: | | Of course, the above argument relies on the assumption that the prisoner will be released, and hence does not apply to prisoners given life-sentences with no prospect of parole or release. |
Once again, you're under the assumption that these life time sentences with no prospect of parole are actually followed through. More often than not, with "good behavior" not only will they recieve parole, they will most likely be let off.
| quote: | | Regardless, I still believe that society can benefits from the efforts of a prisoner who is never released. Even if someone is destined to spend their entire life in jail, they can still work. If the state & the prison authorities wish, they can put prisoners to work, if you like. For instance, in the state where I live, most of the fruit growers are incapable of harvesting their crops, simply because they can't find enough workers. Their fruit is literally rotting on the trees. Now, logistics aside, it may be possible to put prisoners to work, if you like. If this could be put into practice, then the prisoners would be performing a valuable service to society, and could conceivably gain benefits within the prison environment if they worked well. |
Once again I would like to bring to attention my previous argument, where I stated that giving certain individuals the opportunity for employment gives them the opportunity to escape. Let's go out on a limb here however, and say that the individual is working. Regardless, tax payers are still paying for their comfort living in a prison. Which, I know you addressed the situation that not all prisons are heaven, but I shall continue on that subject when I get to it :)
| quote: | | I also hold the belief that even if a prisoner does not work and is indeed a burden on society, that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. |
There's nothing wrong with paying taxes for a criminal who could have killed your daughter and raped her so he can have shelter, food, a place to work out, and a place for entertainment all for free? (This is just circumstantial, but it does happen often (I'm just trying to place this into perspective))
| quote: | | Regardless of what a prisoner has done, is recognising their right to life on altruistic grounds that hard? |
Each person says this until tragedy has befalled them. I indeed was once a person who argued that same sentence once.
| quote: | | Of course , the argument that the prisoner has actually forfeited the right to life could be put forward, but again, I see it as unnecessary state-sanctioned killing. By the way, would you extend the notion of a burden upon society to disabled people, people in vegetative states, or people who are simply unable to work? |
You cannot compare those circumstances. For those who are disabled/in a vegetative state/unable to work, that was not of their own fault. They did not choose to be disabled. They did not choose to be a vegetable. A criminal, knows his rights. I don't believe there is a single individual who cannot decipher the difference between right and wrong. He/She knew the consequences of their actions, and yet the continued to go about doing whatever they did. There is a slight difference. Not only that, but those who are disabled etc, usually wish they could work/live life.
| quote: | | Now, obviously this isn't directed at you, but rather people who support the death penalty due to the punishment or suffering that it apparently inflicts upon the prisoner. |
I don't support it for those reasons. I support it because I feel it is unfair to have the entire country pay for a criminals welfare. I do not want to have to pay for someone's life when they willingly took the lives of others.
| quote: | | I say to them, would not spending the rest of their life locked up in prison be a comparable fate? In what way is the death penalty inherently harsher than life imprisonment. Granted, the circumstances and conditions inside the prison are the determining factor here, but if we run with the assumption that the conditions inside the prison are going to be relatively harsh, then again, why is the death penalty inherently more harmful or traumatic to the prisoner than life imprisonment? |
Once again, Free shelter. Free food. Free exercise station. Free Entertainment. Free free free free free for them. Who's paying for it? You. You are paying for their dental needs. You are paying for their food. You are paying for their clothes. You are paying for their comfort.
Place yourself in the position of the person they had wronged. If he killed and raped your daughter, would you want to pay for him to have a good life? I highly doubt it.
| quote: | | I'd tend to agree with that, drawn out appeals are yet another reason to abolish it. Briefly suspending my opposition to it, in some cases those appeals are still justified. Even though with a perfect justice system I believe that a strong case can still be made against the death penalty, without one I don't see how any decent case can be made in support of it. |
How about we just abolish the process of having the prisoner wait 20 years? We wouldn't have acquittal problems nor last minute appeals.
| quote: | | I hold the view that in the end, it depends on the conditions inside the prison. Some prisons can be hell holes, a fate worse then death to coin a phrase. Others can be incredibly humane, offer the prisoners opportunities to earn money and privileges, and generally treat their subjects with dignity and respect. In all honesty, I believe that the issue of whether life imprisonment is any more or less humane than execution needs to me made with the conditions inside the prison the primary factor taken into consideration. To summarize, I think that it can be both more humane and less humane. There is no way to make an absolute judgement that one is uniformly more humane than the other. |
I think I've already made my point about life when having life imprisonment.
| quote: | | With regards to the Henry quotation, I see your point, perhaps it should be up to the prisoners themselves whether they want to be executed or imprisoned? |
:haha: "Excuse me sir, would you like to have a lethal injection, or perhaps you would like to have life imprisonment where everything will be paid for?" "Uh.... I choose death." :rolleyes:
| quote: | | I've never actually thought about that before. If the highest punishment that the courts were able to impose was life imprisonment, with the option of a prisoner requesting that an execution take place, we might not have this problem today. |
I refer you to my above statement. You have to be mentally retarded to choose death over life in prison where you have everything you need at your fingertips.
| quote: | | On the other hand, I personally would generally prefer imprisonment over death, depending on the circumstances of course. |
If a person killed another, I doubt he really is going to feel so much guilt that he wants to die, unless it was an accident.
| quote: | | A humane prison with opportunities to read, write and so on would be preferable to execution. Again, the prospect of a release of course needs to be taken into consideration, and as such I don't think that the "Give me liberty or give me death!" principle can be applied to cases where the prisoner hasn't been given a life sentence. |
Once again, why bother going through life? Commit a crime and you get opportunities you might have never had before. Education, shelter, food, entertainment... that's enough for someone to go commit a crime if they are living on the streets. Hell, even if they aren't.
| quote: | Agreed, we're getting back to the (possibly utopian?) idea of the perfect justice system. Ah exile, one of my favourite topics. :p Since my country was founded by convicts, I think that exile is a fantastic idea, after all, I wouldn't be here today if not for the British convict laws. ;)
Flippancy aside, I agree that it isn't viable in today's technologically advanced world. Ah well.
Seems that way, the validity of imprisonment & the my ethical objections to execution seem to be the major differences, when it comes to the death penalty as it's currently practised and enforced we appear to be in full agreement. |
However, not you and I... :sadgreen:
Wonderful argument though, I thuroughly enjoyed reading and responding. :) |
|
|
| astroboy |
| Anuneventrade: I understand why you support the death penalty as a solution to a problem. But I have one question: do you believe that the statistical certainty of innocent people being put to death by the state is a fair price to pay for that eloquent solution? If so, how many innocent deaths per year would you be willing to accept? |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Anuneventrade: I understand why you support the death penalty as a solution to a problem. But I have one question: do you believe that the statistical certainty of innocent people being put to death by the state is a fair price to pay for that eloquent solution? If so, how many innocent deaths per year would you be willing to accept? |
The statisical probability of an innocent person being put to death is quite low...
Exonerations 1973-Present
Total 113
That's 3.6 innocent deaths per year on average.
| quote: | Florida 23
Missouri 3
Illinois 17
S. Carolina 3
Oklahoma 7
Indiana 2
Texas 7
Massachusetts 2
Georgia 6
Idaho 1
Arizona 6
Kentucky 1
Louisiana 6
Maryland 1
Pennsylvania 5
Mississippi 1
New Mexico 4
Nebraska 1
North Carolina 4
Nevada 1
Ohio 4
Washington 1
Alabama 3
Virginia 1
California 3 |
| quote: | Total Exonerations Since 1973: 113
Exonerations in 2004: 1
Exonerations in 2003: 10
Exonerations in 2002: 4 |
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/art...?did=412&scid=6
Now, granted, any innocent death is unpardonable and distressing, but the numbers are relatively miniscule if we care to compare them to innocent deaths in a war, i.e. Or innocent deaths from mass murderers. I'd be the first one to scream "huurah!" if there were no innocent deaths, but the facts are, they aren't.
However, I don't think that we should use the excuse of innocents being persecuted, because that is the fault of the lawyers and judidical system, and not of the actual prison time. I'm focusing on what happens in prisions, the fact that their lives are handed to them basically on a silver platter because of the fact that they commited crimes. This is unacceptable. I do not wish to pay someone for being a criminal.
Once again, you need to realize, that you are paying for these people to live such comfortable lives right out of your own pockets. You are paying for them to murder, to rape, to steal, to drive drunk.
There are going to be misconceptions and mistakes one way or the other, however, I think it is morally unacceptable for a citizen to pay for another to commit illegal activities. Now, that's just IMHO.
Btw, here's a list of what crimes you actually have to commit to even recieve the death penalty option
| quote: | Alabama. Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (13A-5-40(a)(1)-(18)).
Arizona. First-degree murder accompanied by at least 1 of 10 aggravating factors (A.R.S 13-703(F)).
Arkansas. Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; treason.
California. First-degree murder with special circumstances; train wrecking; treason; perjury causing execution.
Colorado. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 15 aggravating factors; treason.
Connecticut. Capital felony with 8 forms of aggravated homicide (C.G.S. 53a-54b).
Delaware. First-degree murder with aggravating circumstances.
Florida. First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.
Georgia. Murder; kidnaping with bodily injury or ransom when the victim dies; aircraft hijacking; treason.
Idaho. First-degree murder with aggravating factors; aggravated kidnaping.
Illinois. First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances.
Indiana. Murder with 16 aggravating circumstances (IC 35-50-2-9).
Kansas. Capital murder with 7 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439).
Kentucky. Murder with aggravating factors; kidnaping with aggravating factors (KRS 532.025).
Louisiana. First-degree murder; aggravated rape of victim under age 12; treason (La. R.S. 14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).
Maryland. First-degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony, provided that certain death eligibility requirements are satisfied.
Mississippi. Capital murder (97-3-19(2) MCA); aircraft piracy (97-25-55(1) MCA).
Missouri. First-degree murder (565.020 RSMO 1994).
Montana. Capital murder with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (46-18-303 MCA); capital sexual assault (45-5-503 MCA).
Nebraska. First-degree murder with a finding of at least 1 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstance.
Nevada. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 14 aggravating circumstances (NRS 200.030, 200.033, 200.035).
New Hampshire. Six categories of capital murder (RSA 630:1, RSA 630:5).
New Jersey. Knowing/purposeful murder by one's own conduct; contract murder; solicitation by command or threat in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy (NJSA 2C:11-3C).
New Mexico. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 7 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances (Section 30-2-1 A, NMSA).
New York. First-degree murder with 1 of 12 aggravating factors.
North Carolina. First-degree murder (NCGS §14-17).
Ohio. Aggravated murder with at least 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (O.R.C. secs. 2903.01, 2929.02, and 2929.04).
Oklahoma. First-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily defined aggravating circumstances.
Oregon. Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095).
Pennsylvania. First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances.
South Carolina. Murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances (§ 16-3-20(C)(a)).
South Dakota. First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; aggravated kidnaping.
Tennessee. First-degree murder with 1 of 14 aggravating circumstances.
Texas. Criminal homicide with 1 of 8 aggravating circumstances (TX Penal Code 19.03).
Utah. Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code annotated).
Virginia. First-degree murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (VA Code
§ 18.2-31).
Washington. Aggravated first-degree murder.
Wyoming. First-degree murder. |
clicky
And here are the statistics for the amount of death sentences actually carried out
compared the the amount of people on death row:
The January 1, 2004 report includes the following statistics:
As of January 1, 2004, the number of inmates on death rows across the nation is 3,503, a decrease from the 3,697 reported October 1, 2002.
I think there's a slight difference in numbers, don't you?
| quote: | | Between fiscal years (FYs) 1985-86 and 1995-96, when total general purpose revenue (GPR) spending increased 67 percent, the average daily adult inmate population doubled and expenditures for the adult corrections system increased 129.4 percent, from approximately $121.6 million to an estimated $279.0 million. This figure includes $212.8 million in direct costs of adult correctional facilities, as well as $66.2 million in department-wide costs associated with adult facilities, such as training for new correctional officers and contract costs for inmates housed in non-department facilities. Excluded are costs that are not related to incarcerating adults, such as the costs of supervising offenders on parole and housing juvenile offenders. |
clicky
| quote: | | The [New York] Times laments that it costs $22,000 per year to keep each inmate in custody, but that is not an exorbitant price for preventing millions of annual murders, rapes, armed robberies, and assaults. The cost to society of a single armed robbery has been estimated at more than $50,000; multiply that by the 12 or 13 attacks the average released prisoner commits per year, and $22,000 an inmate looks like...quite a bargain" ("More Prisoners, Less Crime," Aug. 29, 2003). |
 |
|
|
| trancEyes22 |
| ^^^wow....thats like a school report |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
People are lead to think that, but the percentage of people who actually do die from the death penalty is extreemly low in comparision to those who were given the punishment of it. |
I would argue that it's still the principle that underpins it. Regardless of whether procedural factors end up slowing things down, making the implementation of the DP horribly ineffective, I still think that the eye for an eye idea is behind the US death penalty. Regardless, I think that the amount of people who just end up languishing on death row just shows how badly the death penalty system operates in the US, and in my mind is yet another reason to abolish it.
| quote: | | This is based on the notion that the prisoner will actually be released. Not to mention, you must also think of the masterminds that end up in prison. Many of the mass murderers are extreemly intelligent and the only reason that they had been caught was becase they had made one simple mistake. Giving them the opportunity to be in an area where they could work anywhere, will surely give them the thought to escape. Not many prisoners actually want to be rehabilitated. |
Granted, that's how I intended it. I feel that I adequately dealt with literal life-sentences with no prospect of parole later on. The argument that I proposed here was meant to deal exclusively with people who are released. Obviously people who are imprisoned with no prospect of parole are in a different situation altogether, and again, I've taken a different line of attack with them.
Evidently criminal masterminds would relish the chance to escape, but I believe that it's possible to keep close enough tabs on them with good, solid planning and prevention measures. Firstly, any work that a prisoner undertakes doesn't necessarily need to be fruit picking, I simply used it as an example. There are other jobs that could be undertaken within the prison itself. Is any prisoners chosen to leave the prison grounds, then they would presumably need to be classified as low-risk. Any people deemed to be at high-risk of both escape and of danger to the wider community obviously shouldn't be taken outside the prison environment to work. If low-risk subjects were adequately supervised, then I think that letting them perform jobs such as fruit picking wouldn't be such a bad idea after all. As long as proper care is exercised to ensure that any people taken out of the ground aren't going to run off, and if they do, there will be enough staff to apprehend and subdue them, then I can't see the problem with schemes such as these.
On the flipside, if it turns out that I'm wrong, then putting the prisoners to work inside the prison itself is still a perfectly viable option.
| quote: | | You have to understand, that the possibilities of such an event occuring is slim to none. Most prisoners are given an opportunity in employment once their term is served, but more often than not, they fail their parole officer meetings or are incapable of keeping said job. Plus, with America in the horrible job situation it is in right now, to guarantee jobs to criminals when regular citizens are having difficulties finding a job seems a tad unbalanced. |
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf
The document above would seem to suggest that one year after release, 60% of former US inmates are unable to find jobs. That means that at present, roughly 40% are able to acquire and hold down employment. It's not a particularly good situation, but it's a start. I'm not arguing that job prospects are currently good. I recognise the fact that at present, job prospects aren't good. I would argue that we need to rectify that situation as soon as possible. For one, some of the restrictions placed on former inmates with regards to the type of jobs that they can get are unreasonable, in my opinion. Something also needs to be done to address the stigma that's associated with the employment of convicted felons. I believe that the current system simply isn't working. However, I don't hold the view that the system can't be significantly improved.
FYI, I don't think that criminals should be guaranteed jobs, but I also don't think that they should be denied them either. Evidently things need to be done to improve the unemployment rate and the job situation, the amount of ex-prisoners without jobs included.
| quote: | | Once again, you're under the assumption that these life time sentences with no prospect of parole are actually followed through. More often than not, with "good behavior" not only will they recieve parole, they will most likely be let off. |
Not being familiar with how the US handles the 'good behaviour' issue, I'm going to go with what this article says about it (namely that "based on good behaviour, federal prisoners can earn up to 54 days off their sentence for every year in jail").
It seems that life sentences can indeed be commuted, although I could be wrong (any layers lurking, feel free to jump in :p). Thus, the argument I used with regards to prisoners with a prospect of release or parole can also be applied to people with life sentences.
Here's an idea. How about getting prisoners to tend to vegetable gardens or orchards? Why not get them to grow and/or produce food for the homeless? Just because someone is in prison does not mean that they need to be left to rot, or to sit around and do nothing all day. They are still capable of contributing to society, irrespective of what their sentence or crime may have been.
| quote: | | Once again I would like to bring to attention my previous argument, where I stated that giving certain individuals the opportunity for employment gives them the opportunity to escape. Let's go out on a limb here however, and say that the individual is working. Regardless, tax payers are still paying for their comfort living in a prison. Which, I know you addressed the situation that not all prisons are heaven, but I shall continue on that subject when I get to it :) |
Intern, I would point out that if prisoners are assessed, and only inmates deemed to be of low-risk are sent outside to work, then the danger of escape is significantly reduced. I also feel that you're discounting the possibility of prisoners being able to work and contribute inside the prison compound itself. Agreed, we are paying for them. I think that it's an acceptable price to pay. Unless you want to make the death penalty uniform for all crimes, then we're going to need prisons. Someone has to pay for those prisons, and in all honesty, it has to be the taxpayer. I believe that society's investment in a prisoner, if done correctly, means that the society can eventually reap rewards from their investment.
I'd also like to look at your use of the word comfort. I tend to believe that some prisons are far from comfortable. yes, some prisoners do live in unacceptable luxury, but others end up locked down in inhuman cells, and end up 'bending down to pick up the soap' a fair bit. :nervous:
Again, I don't think that the prison system currently works well, but I do think that it can be improved. Ideally, prisons should be humane, and shouldn't be too uncomfortable for their inhabitants, but on the other hand, they shouldn't be a walk in the park either. Afterall, you've committed a crime, and punishment is one of the reasons you're there, albeit not the primary one. It's finding that middle path that's the issue.
| quote: | | There's nothing wrong with paying taxes for a criminal who could have killed your daughter and raped her so he can have shelter, food, a place to work out, and a place for entertainment all for free? (This is just circumstantial, but it does happen often (I'm just trying to place this into perspective)) |
Nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate, I've been known to do it now and then. My primary concern here is that the father/mother in this case have had their view clouded by emotion. They're primarily irritated because it's their daughter, if it were someone else's daughter, then they'd probably be more apathetic, and presumably look at the situation more objectively. I seem to recall Arbiter once saying that emotion is the enemy of rational thought. In this case, I'd tend to agree with that. Their view is being clouded by their emotional attachment to the case.
Further to that, I don't think I've yet addressed the issue of what prisoner's facilities and possessions would be like in my ideal prison system, heh. I'd also argue that what you presented (in your excellent role as the devil's advocate) is a somewhat romanticized view of prison life. In reality, it's a lot tougher than that.
| quote: | | Each person says this until tragedy has befalled them. I indeed was once a person who argued that same sentence once. |
Some might argue that emotion is again clouding their view, thus making it irrational, but I'm not so sure myself. I'd actually like to think that I could indeed recognise their right to life, although until I do go through something like that, anything I say is pure speculation. I do know of a court case down here recently where a woman ran over a cyclist (from memory he was aged in his early twenties) whilst sending an SMS message on her mobile. Admittedly it was manslaughter, but the cyclist's family actually got up in court and asked for the woman to be acquitted. The fact is, cases such as these can and do happen. Although it's no doubt incredibly hard to ignore your urge to go and personally kill the guy who almost killed a close family member, it can be done. Again, if they're working for the good of society in prison, living with what they did, is it really such a bad thing? If they're killed, then they don't have to face up to what they did, as they'll be dead, and wont be around to remember it.
| quote: | | You cannot compare those circumstances. For those who are disabled/in a vegetative state/unable to work, that was not of their own fault. They did not choose to be disabled. They did not choose to be a vegetable. A criminal, knows his rights. I don't believe there is a single individual who cannot decipher the difference between right and wrong. He/She knew the consequences of their actions, and yet the continued to go about doing whatever they did. There is a slight difference. Not only that, but those who are disabled etc., usually wish they could work/live life. |
Oh certainly, there are differences, but there are also some striking similarities. Both apparently contribute nothing to society. Both drain funds and resources from the government, which could conceivably be put to better use elsewhere. On the other hand, there's your argument (which incidentally is also mine), which I believe is the superior one.
I was actually trying to determine whether Arbiter was taking the burden upon society principle literally. I was fairly certain he/she wasn't, but I did want to clarify it. Admittedly the wording was somewhat flippant, so if you've got the wrong impression from it, then it's my fault.
| quote: | | I don't support it for those reasons. I support it because I feel it is unfair to have the entire country pay for a criminals welfare. I do not want to have to pay for someone's life when they willingly took the lives of others. |
Alright, we've narrowed it down to this. I propose that your justification simply doesn't work. The amount of innocent people imprisoned on death row who are subsequently exonerated means that the justice system clearly is not perfect. There are also documented cases of people being killed, and then subsequently been shown to be innocent of the crime they were executed for. Arbiter proposed that arguing for the validity of the death penalty is only reasonable when our justice system is perfect, which in my opinion is 100% correct. As I said before, I would still argue against it on ethical grounds, but that's beside the point at the moment. The fact that innocent people are caught up in this, imho, is a sufficient reason to immediately abolish the death penalty in the US.
| quote: | Once again, Free shelter. Free food. Free exercise station. Free Entertainment. Free free free free free for them. Who's paying for it? You. You are paying for their dental needs. You are paying for their food. You are paying for their clothes. You are paying for their comfort.
Place yourself in the position of the person they had wronged. If he killed and raped your daughter, would you want to pay for him to have a good life? I highly doubt it. |
Once again, I'm a bit sceptical when it comes to this line of reasoning, as 'negative' emotion is coming into play, the entire argument is based on how much the family (or society as a whole) is supposed to hate the criminal. We're throwing away the concept of rehabilitation here, if we adopted this line of thought, then we're redefining the purpose of the entire criminal justice system as we know it.
And no, I have no problem paying for prisoners to live in prison, as I believe that they can and do reintegrate in society, and if not, I think that they can contribute to society inside prison.
Here's a question: Assuming that you aren't in favour of putting to death people who commit insider trading and the like, how much difference (economically speaking) is another hundred prisoners per state going to make with regards to the amount of taxes that one pays to maintain the prison system. Once you balance out the cost of executing someone (and the sheer amount of lengthy appeals that generally result), with the cost of housing someone in prison, and the perceived benefits that society will reap if they manage to re-enter the workforce, is it really economically smarter to execute rather than imprison?
| quote: | | How about we just abolish the process of having the prisoner wait 20 years? We wouldn't have acquittal problems nor last minute appeals. |
Or, we could simply abolish the death penalty altogether. Of course, if we remove the waiting period, even more innocent people would get put to death than the current amount. In my mind, that's a terrible thing.
The simple fact is that innocent people can and do get executed. I'm arguing that that is an unacceptable price to pay. Hence my support for the abolition of the death penalty.
| quote: | | I think I've already made my point about life when having life imprisonment. |
And I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that a prisoner isn't really being punished any more than they would be if they got life in prison when they're executed. When you're dead, there is no suffering, there is no awareness, that's it. If you're looking at this from a punishment rather than a rehabilitation perspective, then how is the death penalty inherently superior to life imprisonment. Surely life imprisonment in solitary confinement with some torture thrown on top would be far worse than a quick and easy death?
| quote: | :haha: "Excuse me sir, would you like to have a lethal injection, or perhaps you would like to have life imprisonment where everything will be paid for?" "Uh.... I choose death." :rolleyes:
I refer you to my above statement. You have to be mentally retarded to choose death over life in prison where you have everything you need at your fingertips. |
In your opinion you would be, but until you've been faced with the prospect of life in prison, maybe you might have a different perspective on things. I don't necessarily think that many (if any) people would go for death over imprisonment, but Arbiter suggested that he would. That's why I floated the idea around, I don't necessarily think that it's a good one, nor do I think that it's particularly bad either.
I also don't agree that people spending the rest of their life in prison have everything they need at their fingertips. In all honesty, I think that prison is actually a lot harsher than you think it is.
| quote: | | If a person killed another, I doubt he really is going to feel so much guilt that he wants to die, unless it was an accident. |
Not necessarily. You never know, I for one would probably feel that way, hell, I feel like crap if I feel that I've hurt someone's feelings. I shudder to imagine what I would feel like if I actually killed another person. Again, it really depends on the person. Some will, some wont I suppose.
| quote: | | Once again, why bother going through life? Commit a crime and you get opportunities you might have never had before. Education, shelter, food, entertainment... that's enough for someone to go commit a crime if they are living on the streets. Hell, even if they aren't. |
I don't know, I don't think that a rational person would seriously consider committing a crime a good way to get a decent education, after all, in reality they're actually screwing up their employment prospects, which is one of, if not the main benefit(s) of an education.
Addressing the supposed opportunities, it seems to me that most, or even all of them can be achieved more easily without committing a crime. Completely discounting a persons moral or ethical beliefs, when you examine, logically, whether committing a crime would be advantageous, it seems to be that it's actually a pretty stupid thing to do.
Firstly, education. Primary and secondary school education is meant to be free, or at least effectively free. Thus, a juvenile committing a crime for the purposes of obtaining an education is, well, an idiot. There are community centres and organizations that help the disadvantaged who offer adult education programs as well, so if one really wants, then they can get training and/or education without bonking someone over the head with a mallet. When you offset the time spent in jail with the free adult education centres and services, I fail to see any benefits to obtaining an education through crime rather than via legal means.
Shelter and food is also available to those that really need it, at least here it is. There are soup kitchens and free homeless shelters provided by charitable organizations through the city, and if that fails, someone can always beg, or hopefully stay with family or a friend, if they have any. There's also public housing on the shelter front, so there are non-criminal options available to people. Further to that, prison isn't exactly the most comfortable place to live, it's conceivable that someone might actually prefer a park bench to a jail cell.
| quote: | However, not you and I... :sadgreen:
Wonderful argument though, I thuroughly enjoyed reading and responding. :) |
Oh well, it would be pretty boring if we agreed on everything. And yeah, I agree, you did put forward some excellent points, it's about time that we vehemently disagreed on something. :p
Post Two.
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
The statisical probability of an innocent person being put to death is quite low...
Exonerations 1973-Present
Total 113
That's 3.6 innocent deaths per year on average. |
There we have it. That's one hundred and thirteen innocent people who were originally convicted but later released. That's a hell of a lot of people for a justice system that's meant to essentially get it right.
It's also important to note that the above graph only lists the people who have been officially exonerated. it makes no mention of people who actually got killed whilst being innocent, or of innocent people still languishing on death row.
Whatever the statistical probability, it still happens, that's an indisputable fact. In my mind, it's simply an unacceptable price to pay.
| quote: | | Now, granted, any innocent death is unpardonable and distressing, but the numbers are relatively miniscule if we care to compare them to innocent deaths in a war, i.e. Or innocent deaths from mass murderers. I'd be the first one to scream "huurah!" if there were no innocent deaths, but the facts are, they aren't. |
War is a "kill or be killed" situation. In my opinion, that analogy fails because in this case, we have other options available to us. I too would say 'hurrah', which is why I think the death penalty should be abolished. That way we can still protect society from the most dangerous criminals, make attempts at rehabilitation, get them to contribute to society, and at the same eliminate innocent deaths. Sounds good to me.
Somehow I suspect that you might be arguing in favour of the abolition of the death penalty if you yourself had been wrongly convicted of a crime you did not commit. These innocent deaths are preventable. Let's prevent them.
| quote: | | However, I don't think that we should use the excuse of innocents being persecuted, because that is the fault of the lawyers and judidical system, and not of the actual prison time. I'm focusing on what happens in prisions, the fact that their lives are handed to them basically on a silver platter because of the fact that they commited crimes. This is unacceptable. I do not wish to pay someone for being a criminal. |
Yes, it is the fault of the judicial system. The judicial system is the one prosecuting them, and ordering their execution. Therefore, why not reform the judicial system to prevent these unnecessary deaths?
What would your stance be on prisoners being given no privileges, no entertainment, and essentially being put on hard labour? Would you support the abolition of the DP if the prison system function like that?
| quote: | | Once again, you need to realize, that you are paying for these people to live such comfortable lives right out of your own pockets. You are paying for them to murder, to rape, to steal, to drive drunk. |
Firstly, I don't agree with you when you assert that prisons are a walk in the park.
However, if we assume that they are, then why not make efforts to reform the prison system, rather than supporting the death penalty? You can have the best of both worlds, you get to punish the prisoners, and avoid innocent deaths. Wouldn't that be a better solution, considering your views with regards to rehabilitation and so on?
| quote: | | There are going to be misconceptions and mistakes one way or the other, however, I think it is morally unacceptable for a citizen to pay for another to commit illegal activities. Now, that's just IMHO. |
But we aren't paying for them to partake in illegal activities. We're paying for their imprisonment, and intern their rehabilitation and punishment.
| quote: | | Btw, here's a list of what crimes you actually have to commit to even recieve the death penalty option |
Again, that's all very well if we had a utopian justice system, but unfortunately we do not. The loss of innocent life is wholly preventable in a situation such as this, thus, we should prevent it IMHO.
| quote: | And here are the statistics for the amount of death sentences actually carried out
|
Fantastic news, the rate of executions i falling. Now we just have to wait until it's eventually abolished. :p
I believe that the abolition of the death penalty is actually inevitable, it's happened in every other western nation, and eventually the US will follow suit.
Completely disregarding my ethical objections, the crux of my argument is that the innocent deaths that result are unacceptable by products, as they are preventable and unnecessary. I don't disagree that there are currently major problems with the US justice system, and that the current economic cost to society when a prisoner is released isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we can rectify the situation. Improve the prison system, abolish the death penalty, and we'll have a better society for it.
By the way, sorry about the huge post. |
|
|
| astroboy |
Several points:
1) As noted, those statistics related to the official exonorations not innocent deaths... which also must occur. Ironically most of these exonorations only came about as a result of the lengthy appeals you seem to dislike. If these processes were cut off, many of those included in the statistics you quoted would have been executed.
2) Your analogies about war and mass murderers are both imperfect. War is a case of kill or be killed, and mass murders are something society condemns precisely because of the slaughter of innocent civilians involved. How can society continue to condemn the killing of innocents while perpetrating the same act?
3) I understand that it seems unfair to have to pay for the criminals continued existance in humane conditions for the rest of their lives. But personally I would rather have society pay for thousands of criminals than have society kill hundreds of innocents while eliminating criminals.
A better analogy would be this:
You are given a gun and a licence to kill, and told that for every random innocent person you shoot on the street, twenty murderers in prison die and society no longer has to pay for them. The only difference is that the people who suffer are never identified (the officials won't even re-open the cases of prisoners executed before the advent of DNA profiling because they don't want the public to lose faith in the justice system). Other than that, this is essentially the trade-off involved in capital punishment - the lives of the innocent are sacrificed for the benefit of the taxpayer's wallet. ... So I guess I'll rephrase my question: What amount of tax saved, would justify the taking of a single innocent life?
It is a question that every true proponent of capital punishment (I mean one that has thought the repercussions through) should be able to answer with certainty. I know I can't answer it, and probably will never be able to - so I by necessity oppose capital punishment. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
I would argue that it's still the principle that underpins it. Regardless of whether procedural factors end up slowing things down, making the implementation of the DP horribly ineffective, I still think that the eye for an eye idea is behind the US death penalty. Regardless, I think that the amount of people who just end up languishing on death row just shows how badly the death penalty system operates in the US, and in my mind is yet another reason to abolish it. |
In all honesty, I would love to abolish the notion of the DP, if there was even any sort of proof that the inmates were able to undergo some sort of actual remorse for the offenses they have committed. However, statistics show that Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. Rehabilitation does not seem to look like it's working for those inmates.
| quote: | Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders. |
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#inmates
| quote: | | Granted, that's how I intended it. I feel that I adequately dealt with literal life-sentences with no prospect of parole later on. The argument that I proposed here was meant to deal exclusively with people who are released. Obviously people who are imprisoned with no prospect of parole are in a different situation altogether, and again, I've taken a different line of attack with them. |
Okay, so we're specifically dealing with only inmates that have prospects of being released. But then that means that all discussions of the death penalty are therefor annulled due to the fact that there will not be any sort of probability of them getting the death penalty.
| quote: | | Evidently criminal masterminds would relish the chance to escape, but I believe that it's possible to keep close enough tabs on them with good, solid planning and prevention measures. Firstly, any work that a prisoner undertakes doesn't necessarily need to be fruit picking, I simply used it as an example. There are other jobs that could be undertaken within the prison itself. Is any prisoners chosen to leave the prison grounds, then they would presumably need to be classified as low-risk. Any people deemed to be at high-risk of both escape and of danger to the wider community obviously shouldn't be taken outside the prison environment to work. If low-risk subjects were adequately supervised, then I think that letting them perform jobs such as fruit picking wouldn't be such a bad idea after all. As long as proper care is exercised to ensure that any people taken out of the ground aren't going to run off, and if they do, there will be enough staff to apprehend and subdue them, then I can't see the problem with schemes such as these. |
Perhaps this could work based on the assumption that none of these inmates are violent and prone to destroy/wreck whatever they work on. If the inmate can be put to work, let them. What if, we proposed a project where the inmate himself would have to pay for being in jail through work while being imprisoned. Then the burden of unnecessary taxes would be lifted and they would be recieving quite the punishment, would they not?
| quote: | | On the flipside, if it turns out that I'm wrong, then putting the prisoners to work inside the prison itself is still a perfectly viable option. |
I agree. :)
| quote: | http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf
The document above would seem to suggest that one year after release, 60% of former US inmates are unable to find jobs. That means that at present, roughly 40% are able to acquire and hold down employment. It's not a particularly good situation, but it's a start. I'm not arguing that job prospects are currently good. I recognise the fact that at present, job prospects aren't good. I would argue that we need to rectify that situation as soon as possible. For one, some of the restrictions placed on former inmates with regards to the type of jobs that they can get are unreasonable, in my opinion. Something also needs to be done to address the stigma that's associated with the employment of convicted felons. I believe that the current system simply isn't working. However, I don't hold the view that the system can't be significantly improved. |
That's better than most of America once completing their education now a days. I'm not saying that jobs should be unavailable to convicted felons that have been proven to have been rehabilitated. If the individual is a repeated offender, clearly this shows that he/she has not been rehabilitated and is not ready to be admitted back into society. I think that once leaving the imprisonment, perhaps they should have to work with their parole officers, perhaps put them to labor work?
| quote: | | FYI, I don't think that criminals should be guaranteed jobs, but I also don't think that they should be denied them either. Evidently things need to be done to improve the unemployment rate and the job situation, the amount of ex-prisoners without jobs included. |
I think it is more important to improve the job situation for non-convicted citizens than for convicted at this point and time. They should be on the bottom of that list, considering they put themselves in thier position.
| quote: | | Not being familiar with how the US handles the 'good behaviour' issue, I'm going to go with what this article says about it (namely that "based on good behaviour, federal prisoners can earn up to 54 days off their sentence for every year in jail"). |
Sometimes even more than that sadly. Many people with twenty year sentences get off after twelve, due to "good behaviour".
| quote: | | It seems that life sentences can indeed be commuted, although I could be wrong (any layers lurking, feel free to jump in :p). |
They can indeed, and in fact, my brother and his fiance are lawyers, so I will get the details on such a situation tomorrow. :)
| quote: | | Thus, the argument I used with regards to prisoners with a prospect of release or parole can also be applied to people with life sentences. |
I wouldn't go that far. :p
| quote: | | Here's an idea. How about getting prisoners to tend to vegetable gardens or orchards? Why not get them to grow and/or produce food for the homeless? Just because someone is in prison does not mean that they need to be left to rot, or to sit around and do nothing all day. They are still capable of contributing to society, irrespective of what their sentence or crime may have been. |
Granted, this could be a possibility, but then in such circumstances, are they not living an absolutely normal life, with no thoughts of regrets or punishment? Because now in addition to shelter/food/clothes/etc, they are having a job, which would be more than likely what they would attempt to achieve if they were not in prison. Which means, they wouldn't have any sort of sense of punishment. The only type of labor I suggest for inmates is actual body labor. They would contribute to society based on the fact that they would be doing manual labor to perhaps... the roads or the actual prison enhancements?
| quote: | | Intern, I would point out that if prisoners are assessed, and only inmates deemed to be of low-risk are sent outside to work, then the danger of escape is significantly reduced. I also feel that you're discounting the possibility of prisoners being able to work and contribute inside the prison compound itself. Agreed, we are paying for them. I think that it's an acceptable price to pay. Unless you want to make the death penalty uniform for all crimes, then we're going to need prisons. Someone has to pay for those prisons, and in all honesty, it has to be the taxpayer. I believe that society's investment in a prisoner, if done correctly, means that the society can eventually reap rewards from their investment. |
No where did I say that the DP should be uniform for all crimes. Perhaps instead of us paying their taxes, they could work off the amounts necessary to keep them surviving? I do believe there is an "imprisonment act" (please don't quote me on that title, I am only going on what it might be entitled for I only saw the actual document briefly) in which taxes would be significantly lowered for citizens due to the fact that all of the labor work needed to add on to/ creat new prisons, would be done by the inmates themselves. I agree to that one.
| quote: | | I'd also like to look at your use of the word comfort. I tend to believe that some prisons are far from comfortable. yes, some prisoners do live in unacceptable luxury, but others end up locked down in inhuman cells, and end up 'bending down to pick up the soap' a fair bit. :nervous: |
I was referring to the fact that they recieve free shelter, clothes, entertainment, food, and exercising... the rest.... :nervous: would be terrifying for anyone :nervous: But once again, these individuals fully know the consequences to their actions when committing their crimes.
| quote: | | Again, I don't think that the prison system currently works well, but I do think that it can be improved. Ideally, prisons should be humane, and shouldn't be too uncomfortable for their inhabitants, but on the other hand, they shouldn't be a walk in the park either. Afterall, you've committed a crime, and punishment is one of the reasons you're there, albeit not the primary one. It's finding that middle path that's the issue. |
Agreed. :)
| quote: | | Nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate, I've been known to do it now and then. My primary concern here is that the father/mother in this case have had their view clouded by emotion. They're primarily irritated because it's their daughter, if it were someone else's daughter, then they'd probably be more apathetic, and presumably look at the situation more objectively. I seem to recall Arbiter once saying that emotion is the enemy of rational thought. In this case, I'd tend to agree with that. Their view is being clouded by their emotional attachment to the case. |
No, I don't believe this to be necessarily true. Being involved with some sort of tragedy, gives you a link, a connection per say, to the individuals who also suffered tragedy. You are forced to sit in their shoes, to look at a situation through their eyes. I would not oppose to the obliteration of the Death Penalty if I was given suffice evidence of the rehabilitation and remorse of the individuals that committed the crime. Unfortunately, such indications cannot be presented to me.
| quote: | | Further to that, I don't think I've yet addressed the issue of what prisoner's facilities and possessions would be like in my ideal prison system, heh. I'd also argue that what you presented (in your excellent role as the devil's advocate) is a somewhat romanticized view of prison life. In reality, it's a lot tougher than that. |
Granted, I know this, but I still presented the known facts. They have shelter (I did not specify if it was likable or even livable to the lines of luxury). They have food (I did not specify whether I myself would ever touch such meals). They have clothes (as non-fashionable as they may be, they are provided with them, including warmer clothes for colder temperatures). They do have access to excellent exercise facilities (this part is true), and they are provided with some sort of entertainment (this varies from prison to prison).
| quote: | | Some might argue that emotion is again clouding their view, thus making it irrational, but I'm not so sure myself. I'd actually like to think that I could indeed recognise their right to life, although until I do go through something like that, anything I say is pure speculation. |
You do indeed realize the need for life. However, it's quite disturbing to see how individuals are simply not bothered in the least by the crimes they have committed. Upon seeing such things with your own eyes, you tend to lose any sort of sympathy for someone who kills another with no regards to their life, their family, or their happiness.
| quote: | | I do know of a court case down here recently where a woman ran over a cyclist (from memory he was aged in his early twenties) whilst sending an SMS message on her mobile. Admittedly it was manslaughter, but the cyclist's family actually got up in court and asked for the woman to be acquitted. |
Such cases are rare and few inbetween and shouldn't really be used as an example.
| quote: | | The fact is, cases such as these can and do happen. Although it's no doubt incredibly hard to ignore your urge to go and personally kill the guy who almost killed a close family member, it can be done. Again, if they're working for the good of society in prison, living with what they did, is it really such a bad thing? If they're killed, then they don't have to face up to what they did, as they'll be dead, and wont be around to remember it. |
Yes, dealing with such emotions and not killing the person is possible. I'm living proof of it. However, what happens when the person doesn't care? They are working for society simply plotting the next time they are able to kill again? They show absolutely no remorse, and in fact, end up getting committed again for the same, if not worse offense. What then? Is it respectable then to charge someone with the death penalty? When he/she has proven to have no remorse whatsoever and in fact, relapsed?
| quote: | | Oh certainly, there are differences, but there are also some striking similarities. Both apparently contribute nothing to society. Both drain funds and resources from the government, which could conceivably be put to better use elsewhere. On the other hand, there's your argument (which incidentally is also mine), which I believe is the superior one. |
You have valid points here, but you are missing the main difference. Those who are invalids (I think that's what you call them in english... in Polish it's inwalidy)/comatose/etc did not put themselves in that position. They did not choose to be in such a state, they did not choose to be a burden to society. Criminals know for a fact the consequences they have to deal with. They know that the punishment for murdering someone is life in jeal or the death penalty. There should be no mercy to those who show absolutely no regard to the law or the lives of others.
| quote: | | I was actually trying to determine whether Arbiter was taking the burden upon society principle literally. I was fairly certain he/she wasn't, but I did want to clarify it. Admittedly the wording was somewhat flippant, so if you've got the wrong impression from it, then it's my fault. |
I think Arbiter is indeed a "he"... but correct me if I'm wrong... :nervous:
| quote: | | Alright, we've narrowed it down to this. I propose that your justification simply doesn't work. The amount of innocent people imprisoned on death row who are subsequently exonerated means that the justice system clearly is not perfect. |
I've provided graphs and information in my previous posts concerning innocents being killed.
| quote: | | There are also documented cases of people being killed, and then subsequently been shown to be innocent of the crime they were executed for. Arbiter proposed that arguing for the validity of the death penalty is only reasonable when our justice system is perfect, which in my opinion is 100% correct. As I said before, I would still argue against it on ethical grounds, but that's beside the point at the moment. The fact that innocent people are caught up in this, imho, is a sufficient reason to immediately abolish the death penalty in the US. |
Yes this is true, but no law system is without it's flaws. However, considering through the information I have provided earlier, the amount of people convicted to the Death Penalty, to those who actually get acquitted based on innocence, is actually impressively minimal. (Note, I am not condoning the killings of innocent people)
| quote: | | Once again, I'm a bit sceptical when it comes to this line of reasoning, as 'negative' emotion is coming into play, the entire argument is based on how much the family (or society as a whole) is supposed to hate the criminal. We're throwing away the concept of rehabilitation here, if we adopted this line of thought, then we're redefining the purpose of the entire criminal justice system as we know it. |
Simply put, it's a very rare circumstance for rehabilitation to work. I provided statistics for how many people get thrown back in jail after being relased. (Mind you, those are just those who got caught)
| quote: | | And no, I have no problem paying for prisoners to live in prison, as I believe that they can and do reintegrate in society, and if not, I think that they can contribute to society inside prison. |
Well I do have a problem with it. These people committed crimes fully knowning the consequences, and without any regard to law. They have murdered, stolen, destroyed property, participated in acts of violence. Why should I be paying for their keep? Let them pay for it. I had no part in any crime. I don't think I should be forced to pay for the consequences of their actions.
| quote: | | Here's a question: Assuming that you aren't in favour of putting to death people who commit insider trading and the like, how much difference (economically speaking) is another hundred prisoners per state going to make with regards to the amount of taxes that one pays to maintain the prison system. Once you balance out the cost of executing someone (and the sheer amount of lengthy appeals that generally result), with the cost of housing someone in prison, and the perceived benefits that society will reap if they manage to re-enter the workforce, is it really economically smarter to execute rather than imprison? |
Actually, upon researching this, I did find statistics that said that it is economically wiser to imprison than to execute. I provide this information because I prefer it not to be used against me in a later argument when I am already fully aware of this now. HOWEVER, the REASON it is statistically more expensive to go through with the death penalty is BECAUSE of the long waiting periods (the cost of that is added in) and the procedures that must be done in order to go THROUGH with the Death Penalty.
| quote: | | Or, we could simply abolish the death penalty altogether. Of course, if we remove the waiting period, even more innocent people would get put to death than the current amount. In my mind, that's a terrible thing. |
I have no problem getting rid of the Death Penalty, as long as life terms are actually carried out. It really turns my stomach over to see individuals who were put away for life for killing and raping children to recieve parole after a certain amount of time and released to society once again. If you're giving an individual a life sentence, stick with it.
| quote: | | The simple fact is that innocent people can and do get executed. I'm arguing that that is an unacceptable price to pay. Hence my support for the abolition of the death penalty. |
I provided those statisitcs. Once again, not that I am condoning such actions, but compared to the amount of civilians killed during an unnecessary war, the numbers are not so extreeme. I repeat, I am not condoning, nor trying to minimize the importance of the lives of individuals who were mistakenly killed.
| quote: | | And I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that a prisoner isn't really being punished any more than they would be if they got life in prison when they're executed. When you're dead, there is no suffering, there is no awareness, that's it. If you're looking at this from a punishment rather than a rehabilitation perspective, then how is the death penalty inherently superior to life imprisonment. Surely life imprisonment in solitary confinement with some torture thrown on top would be far worse than a quick and easy death? |
Refer back to my statement about prisoners and the feelings of remorse. I can't be arsed to type it again. :p
| quote: | | In your opinion you would be, but until you've been faced with the prospect of life in prison, maybe you might have a different perspective on things. I don't necessarily think that many (if any) people would go for death over imprisonment, but Arbiter suggested that he would. That's why I floated the idea around, I don't necessarily think that it's a good one, nor do I think that it's particularly bad either. |
I don't think I know a single individual who upon faced with such a decision would choose death over life in prison. But, let's put this behind us, because such a thing will never happen.
| quote: | | I also don't agree that people spending the rest of their life in prison have everything they need at their fingertips. In all honesty, I think that prison is actually a lot harsher than you think it is. |
I know it's harsher than I'm making it sound, but regardless, they still have food, shelter, clothes, entertainment... etc
| quote: | | Not necessarily. You never know, I for one would probably feel that way, hell, I feel like crap if I feel that I've hurt someone's feelings. I shudder to imagine what I would feel like if I actually killed another person. Again, it really depends on the person. Some will, some wont I suppose. |
So do I. I tend to cry myself if I make another person cry. But this is why you and I are not criminals. Criminals have different personalities and reactios to right and wrong and emotions.
| quote: | I don't know, I don't think that a rational person would seriously consider committing a crime a good way to get a decent education, after all, in reality they're actually screwing up their employment prospects, which is one of, if not the main benefit(s) of an education.
Addressing the supposed opportunities, it seems to me that most, or even all of them can be achieved more easily without committing a crime. Completely discounting a persons moral or ethical beliefs, when you examine, logically, whether committing a crime would be advantageous, it seems to be that it's actually a pretty stupid thing to do.
Firstly, education. Primary and secondary school education is meant to be free, or at least effectively free. Thus, a juvenile committing a crime for the purposes of obtaining an education is, well, an idiot. There are community centres and organizations that help the disadvantaged who offer adult education programs as well, so if one really wants, then they can get training and/or education without bonking someone over the head with a mallet. When you offset the time spent in jail with the free adult education centres and services, I fail to see any benefits to obtaining an education through crime rather than via legal means.
Shelter and food is also available to those that really need it, at least here it is. There are soup kitchens and free homeless shelters provided by charitable organizations through the city, and if that fails, someone can always beg, or hopefully stay with family or a friend, if they have any. There's also public housing on the shelter front, so there are non-criminal options available to people. Further to that, prison isn't exactly the most comfortable place to live, it's conceivable that someone might actually prefer a park bench to a jail cell. |
If you live on the streets, even the extreeme conditions of a jail cell and life in prison seem better than living in a cardboard box everyday and worrying if you might have happened to step over your boundaries into someone elses territory.
| quote: | | Oh well, it would be pretty boring if we agreed on everything. And yeah, I agree, you did put forward some excellent points, it's about time that we vehemently disagreed on something. :p |
Exactly. You gave me something to do all night. :) My friends though have decidedly tell me that I A)have too much time on my hands if I'm willing to research and whip out graphs, and B)am just a full blown geek. :clown:
| quote: | | By the way, sorry about the huge post. |
No problem. Mine was just as long. :) |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Post Two.
There we have it. That's one hundred and thirteen innocent people who were originally convicted but later released. That's a hell of a lot of people for a justice system that's meant to essentially get it right. |
Yes, 113 in 31 years.
| quote: | | It's also important to note that the above graph only lists the people who have been officially exonerated. it makes no mention of people who actually got killed whilst being innocent, or of innocent people still languishing on death row. |
Once again, I didn't say I condoned the action. I just provided proof that it's 113 in 31 years, which is miniscule compared to the amount of people on death row.
| quote: | | Whatever the statistical probability, it still happens, that's an indisputable fact. In my mind, it's simply an unacceptable price to pay. |
I would love for there to be no problems in the system, but you're asking a lot. I don't believe there has been one system in history without its faults.
| quote: | | War is a "kill or be killed" situation. In my opinion, that analogy fails because in this case, we have other options available to us. I too would say 'hurrah', which is why I think the death penalty should be abolished. That way we can still protect society from the most dangerous criminals, make attempts at rehabilitation, get them to contribute to society, and at the same eliminate innocent deaths. Sounds good to me. |
You think my analogy fails with this, I think your analogy fails with vegtables and disabled. To each his own :p
| quote: | | Somehow I suspect that you might be arguing in favour of the abolition of the death penalty if you yourself had been wrongly convicted of a crime you did not commit. These innocent deaths are preventable. Let's prevent them. |
I agree. With better judicial systems, we wouldn't have this problem.
| quote: | | Yes, it is the fault of the judicial system. |
hehe.
| quote: | | The judicial system is the one prosecuting them, and ordering their execution. Therefore, why not reform the judicial system to prevent these unnecessary deaths? |
'Tis what I've been saying all along! By George, I think he has it. :D
| quote: | | What would your stance be on prisoners being given no privileges, no entertainment, and essentially being put on hard labour? Would you support the abolition of the DP if the prison system function like that? |
Indeed I would. In fact, I think I said that in my previous post. :)
| quote: | Firstly, I don't agree with you when you assert that prisons are a walk in the park.
However, if we assume that they are, then why not make efforts to reform the prison system, rather than supporting the death penalty? You can have the best of both worlds, you get to punish the prisoners, and avoid innocent deaths. Wouldn't that be a better solution, considering your views with regards to rehabilitation and so on? |
As I said, if this type of a system were probable, then do away with the death penalty. But that would be regarded as cruel and inhumane punishment. The law works in circles I tell you. I think someone is purposely trying to create strange repetitive cycles which in the end leaves you right where you started.
| quote: | | But we aren't paying for them to partake in illegal activities. We're paying for their imprisonment, and intern their rehabilitation and punishment. |
Which if we are paying for their imprisonment, we are paying for their illegal acitivities, because once again, they knew the consequences of their actions. They knew they would end up in jail, they know they were doing something against the legal system of America.
| quote: | | Again, that's all very well if we had a utopian justice system, but unfortunately we do not. The loss of innocent life is wholly preventable in a situation such as this, thus, we should prevent it IMHO. |
I never disagreed once to the notion of finding a system where all innocent deaths would be prevented.
| quote: | | Fantastic news, the rate of executions i falling. Now we just have to wait until it's eventually abolished. :p |
:stongue:
| quote: | I believe that the abolition of the death penalty is actually inevitable, it's happened in every other western nation, and eventually the US will follow suit.
Completely disregarding my ethical objections, the crux of my argument is that the innocent deaths that result are unacceptable by products, as they are preventable and unnecessary. I don't disagree that there are currently major problems with the US justice system, and that the current economic cost to society when a prisoner is released isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we can rectify the situation. Improve the prison system, abolish the death penalty, and we'll have a better society for it. |
If you can somehow manage to assure the fact that prisoners will indeed not have a chance to end their term early, go for it. As of right now, I don't see it happening. If the prisoner recieved the death penalty, that means he had to have done something atrocious to recieve such a penalty in the first place. And if he recieved such a punishment, then the do not need wait twenty or so years to follow through with it, or then acquit/appeal it. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Several points:
A better analogy would be this:
You are given a gun and a licence to kill, and told that for every random innocent person you shoot on the street, twenty murderers in prison die and society no longer has to pay for them. The only difference is that the people who suffer are never identified (the officials won't even re-open the cases of prisoners executed before the advent of DNA profiling because they don't want the public to lose faith in the justice system). Other than that, this is essentially the trade-off involved in capital punishment - the lives of the innocent are sacrificed for the benefit of the taxpayer's wallet. ... So I guess I'll rephrase my question: What amount of tax saved, would justify the taking of a single innocent life?
It is a question that every true proponent of capital punishment (I mean one that has thought the repercussions through) should be able to answer with certainty. I know I can't answer it, and probably will never be able to - so I by necessity oppose capital punishment. |
I have to admit, excellent analogy. However the fault of all innocent deaths is in the judicial system! If we correct the judicial system, and imprisonment terms/leniency, then we wouldn't have a need for the Death Penalty, nor would we worry about the deaths of innocent citizens. However, such things are not going to happen anytime soon. And in all honesty, I have my private reasons why I am for the death penalty, which have no reason to be discussed in this sub-forum.
Correct the judicial system, then correct imprisonment terms and leniency, and we have a solution that might even address the abolition of the Death Penalty. |
|
|
| Orbax |
And the whole "what is one innocent life worth" thing is great for political debates because everyone is such an ideologist. I ll tell you how much it costs. Nothing if we never find out, and less than missing satellites floating around in space. If you are turning it into a monetary thing, its pretty insignificant.
If you are talking Morally, and saying that taking an innocent life as compared to a guilty one is damaging to some kind of ephemeral "fabric of life" or something, id need a great deal more convincing. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
From a very good article about the death penalty:
| quote: |
The judicial process leading up to the death penalty is not about finding truth beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, here's what really happens: the prosecution strives to create a credible legend (which may be unrelated to the truth.) The defense attempts to raise doubts about this legend (which may but does not necessarily involve creating a counter-legend.) If the jury buys the prosecution's legend, this is called a finding of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The "legend formation" process is dictated by the inherent disorder and uncertainty of human life and the way we go about creating, or in most cases, mimicking the semblances of, order.
[...]
An important feature of legend formation is that it is not typically a search for truth, though often characterized as such. It is more often a search for comfort, similar to an oyster's creation of a pearl by coating a foreign object which has invaded its shell. Once we have an appropriate legend, we can stop worrying. A fully formed legend is an invitation--in many cases, a command--to stop asking inconvenient questions. In very few cases is there any actual way to know if our legend is the truth. People will argue to the end of human time about whether God exists but He will never be scientifically verified. While science has created a respectable process--beginning with the premise that a theory must be "falsifiable"-- it is nonetheless only a rough and imprecise machine, as illustrated by the eventual swapping of a verified "Newtonian" universe for an "Einsteinian" and then a "quantum" universe. Each was considered to be gospel in its time.
We all know of examples of each of these legend-making processes giving results that are laughably wrong: we do not believe today that there is a rain god, or that phlogiston exists, or that the alarm clock is really a bee buzzing. The death penalty is unique today, among all the types of legend formation which still occur in our society: it is the only legend which once formed, results in the intentional killing of a human being.
|
Full text: http://www.spectacle.org/0700/death.html
The point is that it is precisely the flaws of our judicial system which require us to think twice about killing people based on the results of that flawed system. |
|
|
|
|
