Jump to content
Silverwingwyvren

Death Penalty

Recommended Posts

The costs would be dramatically lower if we cut out a percentage of the appeal process. That is where costs build up.

 

Think about Ted Bundy. Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Arrest in 1975, convicted in 1976... escaped twice in 1977 (added cost in tracking him back down and catching him again, also the psychological cost to victim's families and the general public knowing that he was on the loose.) Not executed until 1989. That is 13 years of room, board, medical, etc. that the taxpayers had to pay for on top of the original court cost and sequential appeal cost. 

 

Putting him down by 1980 at the very latest would have saved everyone a lot of money and worry.

I don't know enough about such things to know for sure, but--either the costs come from the appeals and such (as you said, which I think makes sense) or the costs come from the lethal injection stuff. Now. We had a dog that we loved very, very much, who had a horrible seizure thing and... had to be put down and suckish things but AHEM the point is--I don't think it cost us anything to have him humanely put down. A quick look around shows that even when there is a cost, it isn't much. If I can have my beloved dog put down in a merciful way for under a $100, then there is NO REASON a murderer's injections should cost so much that it is cheaper to keep him alive than put him to death.

 

The point is, if it truly costs more to put a murdering psychopath to death than it does to keep him kicking around for 30+ years, then the system needs to be CHANGED, not dismissed with an "oh it'd be cheaper to just keep him alive in the current situation so we'll do that and not change anything about the system herpderp."

 

Edit: Kestra, I'd rather have 99 murderers killed and 1 innocent with them then have those 99 murderers still kicking around. Plus, I am fairly certain that much, much less than 1% of such criminals are actually innocent. Our ability to determine who the criminal is keeps getting better and better as time goes on, and that means the chance of snagging an innocent person gets lower and lower--from an already incredibly small number to begin with.

Edited by angelicdragonpuppy

Share this post


Link to post
Edit: Kestra, I'd rather have 99 murderers killed and 1 innocent with them then have those 99 murderers still kicking around. Plus, I am fairly certain that much, much less than 1% of such criminals are actually innocent. Our ability to determine who the criminal is keeps getting better and better as time goes on, and that means the chance of snagging an innocent person gets lower and lower--from an already incredibly small number to begin with.

Cool - in which case when it's your dad/daughter/partner whose killed by accident, I'm sure you'll be able to comfort yourself as such. :~)

Share this post


Link to post

Cool - in which case when it's your dad/daughter/partner whose killed by accident, I'm sure you'll be able to comfort yourself as such. :~)

And when it's your dad/daughter/partner who has their muderer sitting around comfortably in prison with three meals a day and cable, I'm sure you'll be able to do the same.

 

I honestly don't think a single innocent person has been put to death in our country in the last 50 years. I'm pretty sure if they'd turned up innocent after their deaths the media'd have screamed it to the heavens. XP

Edited by angelicdragonpuppy

Share this post


Link to post

He says it's not too bad, but it gets boring quickly and he doesn't like dealing with new cellmates. He's also bipolar, and he's been in and out of jail since he was 12. He has this thing where he doesn't really learn the consequences of his actions. He knows what he does is wrong, and he knows he will go to prison for it, but he does it anyway. I think he just doesn't care, and he's told me many times he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life...

 

So, it could very well be personality related. I know that Menard Correctional Facility is not exactly an ideal prison, either, with over population and constant problems due to being so close to the Mississippi. (Flooding.)

 

He's told me he really doesn't like what he does, but he does it because it's all he really knows how to do. So, that could be a big factor in it...

Interesting. Thanks for your insight!

 

Edit: Kestra, I'd rather have 99 murderers killed and 1 innocent with them then have those 99 murderers still kicking around. Plus, I am fairly certain that much, much less than 1% of such criminals are actually innocent. Our ability to determine who the criminal is keeps getting better and better as time goes on, and that means the chance of snagging an innocent person gets lower and lower--from an already incredibly small number to begin with.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

 

It's not a ton, but it's not 0.

 

I am in the camp of protecting the innocent and prosecuting the guilty, but not at the cost of the innocent.

It's the same reason why I disagree with all the "security measures" the TSA enforces at airports. Except in the case of the death penalty, we're not talking about just harassment or racial profiling, we're talking about death. =\

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post
And when it's your dad/daughter/partner who has their muderer sitting around comfortably in prison with three meals a day and cable, I'm sure you'll be able to do the same.

I'll bay for their blood? Possibly, yes. But at the same time I do have a believe that killing one person as justice (revenge) for the death of another is not right, so I would like to think that in fact I would not be sitting their demanding that person's death after the 'hot' emotional phase has passed - especially if there's a 1% chance of an innocent being killed. Throw them in a concrete 6' x 6' box with a bucket for ablutions and bread and water for meals, heck yes. But murder them? No.

 

Just saw this on Facebook - food for thought?

 

Here is some food for thought...We should place the elderly in prisons. They will get a shower a day, video surveillance in case of problems, three meals a day, access to a library, computer, TV, gym, doctors on-site, free medication if needed.

Put criminals in nursing homes. They have cold meals, lights off at 7pm, two showers a week, live in a smaller room and pay rent at $4,000 a month!!! It's pretty sad that we treat prisoners better than the elderly....

Share this post


Link to post
And, as ever - what if you get the wrong man?

It's a chance that I'm willing to take if makes my loved ones marginally safer.

Share this post


Link to post
It's a chance that I'm willing to take if makes my loved ones marginally safer.

How is killing innocent people to protect innocent people fair at all?

Share this post


Link to post
It's a chance that I'm willing to take if makes my loved ones marginally safer.

So you're willing to let someone else's loved one be killed, and let that family suffer, just for your peace of mind? And what about when your loved on is the one killed despite their innocence - will it bring you peace of mind knowing at least another family is safer?

Share this post


Link to post

I feel that you should have to make sure you have DNA before you put someone to death. I also believe in DNA for those that go to prison. To many people have been in jail and they did not do it.

Share this post


Link to post

So you're willing to let someone else's loved one be killed, and let that family suffer, just for your peace of mind? And what about when your loved on is the one killed despite their innocence - will it bring you peace of mind knowing at least another family is safer?

I have little doubt that I would try to defend them as long as they are innocent, but it is still a chance that I am willing to take to remove murders and rapist from the species. For most these are learned behaviors and I would rather not have them teaching others.

 

I could personally just as easily be an innocent victim of the system and it's still a chance that I'm willing to take. My basic view has never changed. If we destroy dangerous dogs, what makes dangerous humans immune to the same treatment?

Edited by Sir Barton

Share this post


Link to post
I have little doubt that I would try to defend them as long as they are innocent, but it is still a chance that I am willing to take to remove murders and rapist from the species. For most these are learned behaviors and I would rather not have them teaching others.

 

I could personally just as easily be an innocent victim of the system and it's still a chance that I'm willing to take. My basic view has never changed. If we destroy dangerous dogs, what makes dangerous humans immune to the same treatment?

So long as you have considered that fact ;~)

Share this post


Link to post
It's a chance that I'm willing to take if makes my loved ones marginally safer.

Are you meaning to say, if the law is not sure they have the right man, you would see that person go to prison or to be put to death, ohmy.gif

 

I hope I am wrong about you thinking this.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you meaning to say, if the law is not sure they have the right man, you would see that person go to prison or to be put to death,  ohmy.gif

 

I hope I am wrong about you thinking this.

Unless you have a confession, can you ever be 100% certain? That is the argument against Capital Punishment. Humans are fallible and I would be an idiot not to realize that there will always be some collateral damage.

 

DNA is a great thing in helping bring the guilty to justice, but it can be compromised just like any other piece of evidence. The best that we can go on for a conviction is an eye witness account and what the evidence shows. Then it's up to a jury to decide if that person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rule of thumb is the law does not punish unless reasonable doubt has been ruled out and they are confident that they have the guilty party. Mistakes still happen, though.

 

Let me tell you from working with minor crimes, eye witnesses don't always agree on what they saw. When I was robbed and had a knife up against my neck, I didn't have the best recall about my attacker's description. Stress will do that to you and then there is always the bystander effect that kicks in. He was caught and the evidence proved itself out, but when he decided to challenge the charges several years later, my memory on what he was wearing and how tall he was was pretty sketchy.

 

I understand the cons of the death penalty; always have. Collateral damage is regrettable, however for me the benefits of taking these violent criminals out of the population entirely is worth the risk.

Edited by Sir Barton

Share this post


Link to post
Cool - in which case when it's your dad/daughter/partner whose killed by accident, I'm sure you'll be able to comfort yourself as such. :~)

Cool - in which case when it's your dad/daughter/partner who is killed by some serial killer's fanboy I'm sure you'll be able to comfort yourself with the fact that 1 innocent life was spared while many others were hurt including your dear ones. :~)

Share this post


Link to post

Cool - in which case when it's your dad/daughter/partner who is killed by some serial killer's fanboy I'm sure you'll be able to comfort yourself with the fact that 1 innocent life was spared while many others were hurt including your dear ones. :~)

I'm unsure where your line of thought came from? Did you quote the wrong phrase/user/whatnot? o.o

 

Innocent loved one mistakenly called a serial killer is killed under death penalty.

Copycat kills a(nother) loved one of yours.

????

Profit.

 

How does sparing one innocent life cause the death of other innocents?

 

(Or are you trying to comment in saying not allowing the death penalty encourages copycats?)

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

@Sir Barton, I am sorry this happened to you.

 

But to send an innocent man to prison or death row, is unforgivable to me. I know if it happened to me, I would be so angry. That is a human life that will be destroyed forever. I keep up with the news and see all the time the innocent men that were released after 10 or 20 years. What do you say to these poor people!!! I think they should be able to sue big time, after all their lives have been ruined.

 

Just because someone went to prison, without positively being able to put them at the scene or dna, is not right. It makes you, nor anyone else any safer. To put you or someone you love in a false sense of security because someone went to jail, does not make it so.

 

I just can not fathom your way of thinking, I am sorry. I certainly would not want you on my jury, that is for sure. I would look at you and say, you are no better than the killer or the person that assulted you for putting an innocent person away, rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Let me tell you from working with minor crimes, eye witnesses don't always agree on what they saw. When I was robbed and had a knife up against my neck, I didn't have the best recall about my attacker's description. Stress will do that to you and then there is always the bystander effect that kicks in. He was caught and the evidence proved itself out, but when he decided to challenge the charges several years later, my memory on what he was wearing and how tall he was was pretty sketchy.

Firstly, sorry to hear that happened to you.

 

Secondly, good old bystander effect - as a front-line medic, I and others have to deal with this often. Especially in assaults; I can have four people give me four different stories as to how someone ended up such-and-such injury. Which is why, for me, infallible evidence would have to be something caught on high-quality film, and plenty of eye-witness accounts that are mostly the same, as well as all the physical pieces of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Cool - in which case when it's your dad/daughter/partner who is killed by some serial killer's fanboy I'm sure you'll be able to comfort yourself with the fact that 1 innocent life was spared while many others were hurt including your dear ones. :~)

Why does sparing an innocent life hurt others? Did you mean to say one guilty life? huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
@Sir Barton, I am sorry this happened to you.

 

But to send an innocent man to prison or death row, is unforgivable to me. I know if it happened to me, I would be so angry. That is a human life that will be destroyed forever. I keep up with the news and see all the time the innocent men that were released after 10 or 20 years. What do you say to these poor people!!! I think they should be able to sue big time, after all their lives have been ruined.

 

Just because someone went to prison, without positively being able to put them at the scene or dna, is not right. It makes you, nor anyone else any safer. To put you or someone you love in a false sense of security because someone went to jail, does not make it so.

 

I just can not fathom your way of thinking, I am sorry. I certainly would not want you on my jury, that is for sure. I would look at you and say, you are no better than the killer or the person that assulted you for putting an innocent person away, rolleyes.gif

Well, I do agree that I am no better then anyone else, but at least I play by the rules of society.

 

The idea is not to incarcerate the innocent; it's just logical that some innocents will be caught up in the system because of our human fallibility. There just really is no way around that. Advancements in criminology reduce the chances of an innocent being convicted, but some poor smuck will still find himself behind bars. Yes, I think that there should be some sort of recompense for the person who was unrightfully incarcerated, though what can you really do to repay that individual? Also keep in mind that conditions are less then ideal, but that person did get treated better then we treat our elderly as I believe Kestra's link pointed out.

 

Putting that one innocent person on death row doesn't make anyone safer, but the twelve others who are guilty of their crime sitting there in adjacent cells does. When Ted Bundy was put to death young girls across the country, but especially in the northwest had one less demon to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm unsure where your line of thought came from? Did you quote the wrong phrase/user/whatnot? o.o

 

Innocent loved one mistakenly called a serial killer is killed under death penalty.

Copycat kills a(nother) loved one of yours.

????

Profit.

 

How does sparing one innocent life cause the death of other innocents?

 

(Or are you trying to comment in saying not allowing the death penalty encourages copycats?)

I'm saying, allowing 99 guilty serial killers to live within the system, allowing them contact with "inside" world (other convicts) and "outside" world (letters to fanboys etc) has more potential of harm than wrongfully killing one innocent person.... simple math dry.gif

Edited by The Evil Doer

Share this post


Link to post

I just can not fathom your way of thinking, I am sorry. I certainly would not want you on my jury, that is for sure. I would look at you and say, you are no better than the killer or the person that assulted you for putting an innocent person away,  rolleyes.gif

Well, frankly, he wouldn't know the person was innocent or guilty. You wouldn't either, no matter what they say, unless you actually witness it happening (in which case you should be in the witness stand). Even evidence can be wrong, no matter how unlikely that is.

 

Death is permanent. No fixing for the wrongfully accused, no escape for the serial killers.

 

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." With this mindset, some are saying that an innocent may die for a crime he/she didn't commit and that's fine, since killing the accused criminals will stop them from continuing on with their whatever-they-did, keeping more people from dying.

 

Now on the other side, some are saying that innocents should be protected, meaning that either there should be no death penalty or the death penalty should only be executed in the case of very solid evidence (like DNA). Either way, more people are at the risk of being killed by escaped convicts, since they have a lifetime (maybe) to try getting out.

 

Of course, no one's recently mentioned that if an innocent is wrongfully convicted, the real criminal's still out there. And worse, since they believe the killer's gone (either behind bars or dead) no one's going to do anything else until more people turn up missing/dead.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm saying, allowing 99 guilty serial killers to live within the system, allowing them contact with "inside" world (other convicts) and "outside" world (letters to fanboys etc) has more potential of harm than wrongfully killing one innocent person.... simple math dry.gif

Indeed, and that cannot be argued with logically; what is one innocent life, when you can remove 99 certified monsters?

 

Sadly, humans are not logical - hence this debate. That, and fallibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Firstly, sorry to hear that happened to you.

 

Secondly, good old bystander effect - as a front-line medic, I and others have to deal with this often. Especially in assaults; I can have four people give me four different stories as to how someone ended up such-and-such injury. Which is why, for me, infallible evidence would have to be something caught on high-quality film, and plenty of eye-witness accounts that are mostly the same, as well as all the physical pieces of evidence.

Exactly, which is why I do understand the anti capital punishment side of the argument. I really do. I just tend to put a bit too much faith in our flawed system.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm saying, allowing 99 guilty serial killers to live within the system, allowing them contact with "inside" world (other convicts) and "outside" world (letters to fanboys etc) has more potential of harm than wrongfully killing one innocent person.... simple math dry.gif

Yeah, and then have that entire innocent person's family out for revenge when their loved one is innocently slaughtered, WAY safer indeed.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I don't mind the death penalty because I'm of the mind that locking someone up for 50+ years is crueler. I think that is why so many people that kill their relatives etc, shoot themselves.

 

But my main support for it is in the case of serial killers/rapists. IE, Manson, Dahmer, Gacy, Bradley. 100% sure of what they did. Caused massive harm/death to multitudes of people? Bye. Cya.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.