Discussion in 'Politics' started by Seattle, Apr 29, 2015.
It's time for an end to the dealth penalty in the U.S. Do you agree?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'd prefer a global end for that travesty, but if the US would stop it'd be a good start.
I disagree... on the simple basis that there are some people too dangerous to be left out in the general populace (child predators, serial killers, serial rapists, etc).
However, instead of putting them to death, I suggest a change:
Find a relatively moderate sized, deserted island. Fill it with all the fun little venomous critters that wander around Australia. Those sentenced to "death" can, instead, choose to be placed upon this island to live out their remaining days.
Wrongfully executed people argument here etc.
Also, it's cheaper going with life imprisonment than to have them on death row.
Since this island would be full of murderers, all with life sentences, their collective propensity to kill, will indirectly become the basis for the death penalty, without being the death penalty.
The difference is each of these people kill for reasons beyond vengeance for the innocent. They like to kill for crazy selfish reasons, that led to them to that place. This is not the death penalty, but it serves that the same purpose because it is not about revenge for innocents or victims, but it places criminals first. Liberals will be happy because only the criminals celebrities will be allowed to kill. The innocent conservative citizens benefit because they get to avoid hands on; leave it to the professionals; don't try this at home.
If you notice those against the death penalty, never feel that strong against murder in general, to where they also become activist against murder. They will like the idea of their favored professionals being the only one who can kill, since this is more tolerable, to them, than citizens doing this for revenge of the innocent. Everyone benefits by compromise.
Not sure how you figure that...
It seems that most of the "cost" in a death-penalty case is the constant stream of appeals and the knuckle-down drag-out fight in court.
Ultimately, the problem is simple: How do you incarcerate a significant fraction of the population... and what is said fraction incarcerated? Some people are simply too unstable and too dangerous to be in public... does this mean we should have to attend their every whim and need until the end of their natural lifespan?
Put them in stasis until they die.
Send them to a foreign prison where they would charge much less than an American one does.
I still think execution is the only way to get these people out of getting anything that would prolong their lives as they never cared about their victims who they tortured, raped and murdered.
I don't believe retribution is justice. The justice system should exist to protect society. It should not be used to inflict vengeance. And sometimes innocent people are convicted for crimes they have not committed. Death is a rather uncompromising sentence from which there is no recompense. However, there are some truly dangerous people out there and are a very real and present threat to the lives of those around them and are truly worthy of the death sentence. The death sentence should only be used in those cases where the crime has been exceptionally heinous and guilt is certain as a deterrent to others who would commit such crimes.
Life in prison works as well as capital punishment, and is cheaper to boot.
Thing is, in a clear-cut case (which is admittedly rare), I don't see how life in prison could possibly be cheaper than a .357 to the noggin... I mean, from what I've read, the actual drugs used for the lethal injection are around $100 a shot
Well, in a clear-cut case, putting someone in a hole and locking the door forever is cheaper than a .357 to the noggin (no ammo or gun costs; locks are cheap.) However, in the real world, capital punishment is considerably more expensive than that, due to the mandatory appeals and greater scrutiny of such cases. Which is how it should be.
And even with all this care, innocent people end up on death row - so there's no way we can go cheaper.
This is, unfortunately, true... the human condition is a bitch, innit?
My view on this is that the usa gov has techs to find out absolutely about a murder case that they have a suspect for. So no innocent person should be on death row.
Although i am against the death penalty, i like alot of others understand that some people go way to far, and just cannot live in society. Personally i would just rather that the process was quicker, and they sed the techs they have to prove innocence or guilt quicker today, so there is no question about guilt.
But to say get rid of it, i am not sure, as some people go way to far. So for me, with the techs the usa gov has, they should find out quicker whom is guilty if is a suspect. If they suspect you of a serious crime, they can find out today for sure, if its in your memory, and prove it either wya, what happened with respect to the case, or if you had nout to do with it.
So for me the process should be quicker, and there should be no innocent person on death row with the techs the usa gov has.
But the question of what you do with guilty people of very serious crimes, i have no idea. I do not like torture, and i would rather the process was quicker, maybe a firing squad, and just finish it quickly, if absolutely proved they are guilty.
I don't think killing someone (generally) makes the victim's family feel any better (depends on the family) and punishment is for society anyway and not for the family.
Not killing a murderer sends a stronger message (to society) as to the sanctity of life than killing (retribution). Life in prison deters that person just as much as killing them.
One theory of rehabilitation is that it is more effective when the prisoner is treated with dignity and loses only his freedom. Therefore he has no one to blame for his situation other than himself. Recidivism rates tend to be much lower in countries with this type of approach.
Not that anyone is too concerned with rehabilitation for mass murderers but I think it makes a stronger impact when "society" acts the polar opposite than the criminal.
Getting revenge for society isn't really healthy for society. That's the main point in my opinion. It's not about being "soft" on prisoners. It's about "doing the right thing" when it's easy to not do so.
The tech is not foolproof. DNA tests can (and do) fail. Recordings can (and do) get altered. Computer records can (and do) get lost.
There is also not always anything for technology to work with. Plenty of people are convicted with circumstantial evidence and one of the circumstances is that they happen to be the wrong race standing at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Two Australian Citizens were only yesterday executed in Indonesia for drug offences.
Despite pleas and protests from Australia, the executions went ahead.
Australia has now withdrawn its Indonesian Ambassador.
On this issue I was totally against their executions.
But at times when I hear about vicious murders, gang rapes etc, I sometimes have opposite thoughts. I'm not sure. Sticking them on a remote deserted Island may not be such a bad idea, but please leave out our cute little Aussie creatures! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
While the US is technologically advanced, it doesn't have magic wands.
Wittnesses lie. Memories are not perfect. Not all crimes are photographed or leave DNA trails or fingerprints.
What would happen if over time someone would go into the evidence room and steal something out of someone's evidence box that was used to put them away? That piece of evidence might be the only piece that convicted the person of the crime. Over time things can happen and they aren't always good. There could be a retrial or appeal to get the case reheard if that evidence isn't found any longer. That's a very realistic thing that could and does happen. Say 10 years from now the evidence of DNA was in a box in a storeroom somewhere and it was "lost". There could easily be a appeal about this case and the criminal could be released due to lack of evidence.
Peru has a island prison.
El Frontón is an island off the coast of Callao, Peru.
For much of El Frontón's history, the island was used as a prison. Fernando Belaúnde Terry, who was twice president of Peru, was imprisoned on the island as a political prisoner. During his imprisonment, Belaúnde Terry made an unsuccessful attempt to swim to freedom. Hugo Blanco was also imprisoned on the island.
During the insurgency of the Shining Path, the island was used as a prison for Maoist militants. On June 18, 1986, the Shining Path led an uprising on El Frontón as well as two other prisons. The government of Alan García treated the prisons as war zones, and the Peruvian Navy was sent to the island. Many of the prisoners involved in the rebellion were killed, and Human Rights Watch claimed that evidence suggested that "no fewer than ninety" of the prisoners killed were victims of extrajudicial executions
Separate names with a comma.