The Death Penalty

  • jessetriguy

    Posts: 339

    Sep 22, 2010 12:41 PM GMT
    Are you FOR or AGAINST????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 12:43 PM GMT
    Against.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 8:44 PM GMT
    Against. Mistakes can happen, which in this case cannot be undone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 8:46 PM GMT
    Going to have to disagree with SB on this one.

    Against.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 12:44 AM GMT
    Unquestionably "For", for capital crimes and certain other aggravated crimes.

    And release drug offenders incarcerated under simple possession charges, and "intent to sell or distribute", when arrested in possession of trivial amounts (i.e. he isn't a Columbian drug lord or some mover of contraband where the measure is in tons or hundreds of kilos as opposed to dozens of ounces).

    Of course, the prison industry will never support it, as it would undercut their funding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 1:06 AM GMT
    Against, simply because it doesn't work.
    Statistics have been murky whether there is a deterrence effect (wikipedia says that one researcher even said: "Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program" because to show an effect in a state, that state has to have executed at least nine people in 20 years).
    In fact, more recent statistics show that states with the death penalty have more murders:
    murderratesDP&NDP.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 2:04 AM GMT
    The key here would be to speed up the process of actually carrying out the death penalty. Shorten the window from sentencing to execution from tens of years to no longer than a year.

    Televise it, (provide a revenue stream to the state by making it a pay-per-view event even)... show it in schools (at a high school level).

    This will make the death penalty a far more effective deterrent against evildoers.

    Incarcerating prisoners for life is a horrible burden, both on the prisoner and upon the taxpayers; it would reduce the time the prisoner could be exposed to extra-judiciary punishment (in the form of prison rapes and other crimes committed against him while incarcerated).

    One could even argue that life imprisonment is far more cruel and unusual, than a lethal injection, or a .22 caliber high velocity round delivered into the back of the skull (no messy exit wound, the subject could likely be given an open-casket funeral if done right).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 3:40 AM GMT
    So according to your statement that life imprisonment is worse on the prisoner, we should promote that more on TV for maximal deterrent effect, no? 24-CC TV in a max security cell. icon_razz.gif

    Actually, some people advocated for Timothy McVeigh's execution to be public so that they can provoke a backlash against the death penalty to end it once and for all. I'm all for televising it if that's the case.

    There's also the brutalization hypothesis which may explain why showing executions may actually worsen the homicide rate:
    wikipediaThe brutalization effect, also known as the brutalization hypothesis, argues that the death penalty has a brutalizing or coarsening effect either upon society or those officials and jurors involved in a criminal justice system which imposes it. In the brutalization hypothesis, capital punishment may send a certain message that it is acceptable to kill in some circumstances, or that society has a disregard for the sanctity of life. Bowers and Pierce claim a definite increase in homicides in the months immediately after an execution. This appears in an analysis done relative to the executions in New York state between 1907-1963. The brutalizing effect of the death penalty may be a reason for the increasing number of murders in jurisdictions in which it is practiced.[15][16]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 4:00 AM GMT
    If you want one word,

    Against.

    alphatrigger said
    Televise it, (provide a revenue stream to the state by making it a pay-per-view event even)... show it in schools (at a high school level).

    This will make the death penalty a far more effective deterrent against evildoers.



    That is so fucked up that I can't even begin to describe it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 4:21 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSo according to your statement that life imprisonment is worse on the prisoner, we should promote that more on TV for maximal deterrent effect, no? 24-CC TV in a max security cell. icon_razz.gif


    It's more a quality of life thing for the prisoner as well as reducing the cost on the taxpayer.

    And I go further than that, to say that our current system of long-term prisoner warehousing may actually constitute "cruel and unusual punishment", given the issues of prison rape/maltreatment, the duration of the typical life/long-term sentence, to say nothing of the issue of recidivism amongst hardened criminals, as well as the hardening of younger offenders exposed to these older, hardened criminals.

    As for the brutalization aspect, I suspect the effect would be lessened by a very clinical execution (lethal injection, or a "cattle gun" such as used in beef/pork slaughter houses that delivers a low calibre/high velocity slug into the animal's brain case (less mess, relatively quick death, especially when delivered into the part of the base of the brain that regulates basic life support).

    Ideally, the viewer at home sees the condemned criminal slump over dead, no excessive gore involved.

    On the public 24/7 CCTV monitoring of non-death row inmates: it could serve to tamp down prison rapes and other crimes by both staff and other prisoners, though it might also sensationalize and open the door to prison riots/terrorism.

    As I see it, there can be three basic classes of punishment:

    1.First time offenders/nuisance offenders whose punishment ranges from community service, financial restitution to the victims, or public fines to short terms (no more than six months) in jail at medium labour. Think Sheriff Joe Arpaio's system in Maricopa County, AZ as a good template of this.

    2. Repeat offenders/felony non-capital crimes whose punishment would range from 6 months to around three years at hard labour. Backbreaking stuff, like working with a road crew with picks and shovels at shotgun-point on a chain gang. Fed with low food rations (perhaps keeping to a daily allotment of 16 kcal to 1kg of body weight for males and 12 kcal per kg for females) consisting of bread, water, and a minimum amount of protein, and vegetables (certainly not enough time for them to get all muscled up as they do now, not so much as to reduce them to starvation levels).

    In no wise should the taxpayers be required to fund the prisoner's college education and budding fitness model career (ermmmm, well for "Gang Tattoo Monthly" perhaps... heh).

    3. Death Row: isolated from the general population, but also at hard labour and under the same conditions generally as prisoners in #2. Sentence to be carried out within one year, or commuted to no more than three years plus time served.

    Bullwinklemoos saidThat is so fucked up that I can't even begin to describe it.


    Indeed?

    Criminals deserve to be punished by society in a way that dissuades them, and others from doing evil... not mollycoddled at public expense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 4:28 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidThe key here would be to speed up the process of actually carrying out the death penalty. Shorten the window from sentencing to execution from tens of years to no longer than a year.

    Televise it, (provide a revenue stream to the state by making it a pay-per-view event even)... show it in schools (at a high school level).

    This will make the death penalty a far more effective deterrent against evildoers.

    Incarcerating prisoners for life is a horrible burden, both on the prisoner and upon the taxpayers; it would reduce the time the prisoner could be exposed to extra-judiciary punishment (in the form of prison rapes and other crimes committed against him while incarcerated).

    One could even argue that life imprisonment is far more cruel and unusual, than a lethal injection, or a .22 caliber high velocity round delivered into the back of the skull (no messy exit wound, the subject could likely be given an open-casket funeral if done right).


    Right...what about the innocent people killed in the process?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 4:41 AM GMT
    For. With good reason too.

    With the rest investigative properties and within the right guidelines, I feel it would be good.


    Then again, I also think eye for an eye for rapists would be good. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 1:40 PM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    q1w2e3 saidSo according to your statement that life imprisonment is worse on the prisoner, we should promote that more on TV for maximal deterrent effect, no? 24-CC TV in a max security cell. icon_razz.gif


    It's more a quality of life thing for the prisoner as well as reducing the cost on the taxpayer.

    And I go further than that, to say that our current system of long-term prisoner warehousing may actually constitute "cruel and unusual punishment", given the issues of prison rape/maltreatment, the duration of the typical life/long-term sentence, to say nothing of the issue of recidivism amongst hardened criminals, as well as the hardening of younger offenders exposed to these older, hardened criminals.

    As for the brutalization aspect, I suspect the effect would be lessened by a very clinical execution (lethal injection, or a "cattle gun" such as used in beef/pork slaughter houses that delivers a low calibre/high velocity slug into the animal's brain case (less mess, relatively quick death, especially when delivered into the part of the base of the brain that regulates basic life support).

    Ideally, the viewer at home sees the condemned criminal slump over dead, no excessive gore involved.

    On the public 24/7 CCTV monitoring of non-death row inmates: it could serve to tamp down prison rapes and other crimes by both staff and other prisoners, though it might also sensationalize and open the door to prison riots/terrorism.

    As I see it, there can be three basic classes of punishment:

    1.First time offenders/nuisance offenders whose punishment ranges from community service, financial restitution to the victims, or public fines to short terms (no more than six months) in jail at medium labour. Think Sheriff Joe Arpaio's system in Maricopa County, AZ as a good template of this.

    2. Repeat offenders/felony non-capital crimes whose punishment would range from 6 months to around three years at hard labour. Backbreaking stuff, like working with a road crew with picks and shovels at shotgun-point on a chain gang. Fed with low food rations (perhaps keeping to a daily allotment of 16 kcal to 1kg of body weight for males and 12 kcal per kg for females) consisting of bread, water, and a minimum amount of protein, and vegetables (certainly not enough time for them to get all muscled up as they do now, not so much as to reduce them to starvation levels).

    In no wise should the taxpayers be required to fund the prisoner's college education and budding fitness model career (ermmmm, well for "Gang Tattoo Monthly" perhaps... heh).

    3. Death Row: isolated from the general population, but also at hard labour and under the same conditions generally as prisoners in #2. Sentence to be carried out within one year, or commuted to no more than three years plus time served.

    Bullwinklemoos saidThat is so fucked up that I can't even begin to describe it.


    Indeed?

    Criminals deserve to be punished by society in a way that dissuades them, and others from doing evil... not mollycoddled at public expense.


    Costs to the taxpayer are definitely a problem and that's why we should cut down on all of the luxuries that prisoners enjoy. Food and water.

    Even so, I can't justify being for the death penalty because there is a risk that someone innocent will die for another persons crime and you simply can't undo something like that. Humans are flawed and not always is it possible to 100% accurately convict.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 3:04 PM GMT
    Some people just deserve to die...






















    comicthissogoeswithmyshirt1.png