Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it is a joke. Even Russia hasn't killed one of their citizens by law since 1999. Hardly any first world countries do and that's only if you consider Lebanon to be first world.
Which country comes closest to the model you think we should follow?
I'm not concerned with what other countries do, or with following the lead of another. There will come a time in the not so distant future that we will not be able to build prisons fast enough to house all the murderers. The courts will reach max capacity with trials and numerous appeals. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers to keep criminals alive for no good reason.
If we were to raise the value of human life to the level of "If you murder, your life is forfeited", we would accomplish a real decline in violent crime. It's not about punishment, it's about requiring a certain level of humanity. If nothing else, we would free up resources that could be used in other ways to protect the public. The ultimate crime should receive the ultimate penalty.
Tell me this-what have we accomplished by caging the animals?
I'm not concerned with what other countries do, or with following the lead of another. There will come a time in the not so distant future that we will not be able to build prisons fast enough to house all the murderers. The courts will reach max capacity with trials and numerous appeals. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers to keep criminals alive for no good reason.
If we were to raise the value of human life to the level of "If you murder, your life is forfeited", we would accomplish a real decline in violent crime. It's not about punishment, it's about requiring a certain level of humanity. If nothing else, we would free up resources that could be used in other ways to protect the public. The ultimate crime should receive the ultimate penalty.
Tell me this-what have we accomplished by caging the animals?
I think the overall question is too big for the Charlotte forum. UK has about 1/4 our murder rate and has no death penalty and Russia has more than twice with the penalty that isn't used.
I say there is no proof that there would be a real decline in violent crime if we went that far. It's too complicated and I doubt that the monster in this case did any thinking at all or he would have been smarter. I certainly don't think he weighed the possible penalties before committing his crime.
And BTW we don't put down rabid dogs as a punishment.
One thing that may be in the minds of some of these prosecutors, is the hack job done with the Casey Anthony trial. The prosecution was particularly aggressive with charging her with first degree murder and trying for the death penalty, even though they only had circumstancial evidence regarding her intent, and that higher burden of proof ultimately doomed them. While I can't agree with the dismissal of the lessor charges, I don't think that we would have ended up with the same conclusion had she been charged with 2nd degree murder. And it may be possible that the DA in this instance had a guy who was willing to plead guilty, and would run the risk of having him acquitted if he pushed the death penalty.
Those are two very different cases. For Casey Anthony they had very little hard evidence and relied mainly on circumstantial. Here we had every type of evidence, blood leading to his apartment, telling his sister he did it, the bloody weapon, bloody clothes, and her car in his possession. One shoe on her and one with him. It would take the most incompetent prosecutor to mess up this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
And BTW we don't put down rabid dogs as a punishment.
what's your point.... Dogs also don't have opposable thumbs and are more hairy.... He wasn't comparing them in every aspect. We put them down to incapacitate them and protect society, as we should do with humans that aren't able to control their actions.
what's your point.... Dogs also don't have opposable thumbs and are more hairy.... He wasn't comparing them in every aspect. We put them down to incapacitate them and protect society, as we should do with humans that aren't able to control their actions.
This^^ is exactly my point. It's not about punishment, it's about protecting society. "Punishing" murderers as we do now punishes the taxpayers and the victim's families as well when the murderers' names come up for various reasons. If someone murdered a loved one, at the very least I do not want them to have the slightest chance of living any longer than absolutely necessary. Why should they have that opportunity?
There is absolute proof that executing murderers will reduce violent crime. It's called recidivism. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I've seen numerous cases where killers kill again once they are released or while in prison. They are also responsible for other violent crimes when released. I'd be willing to bet that the majority commit other crimes once released. Stop the madness. Remove them permanently.
My opinion, which is based on many sources, is that changing the mindset of the populace in general to "If I murder, I die" will soon cause a general reduction in all violent crimes. As it is, we have the three strikes law, which means I can commit three serious felonies (three separate murders?) before I will definitely be sentenced to 25+ years. Big deal. People who behave like this are beyond being concerned about jail time, and may also not care about dying for their crimes. So be it. It's not a matter of people thinking about their crime just before committing it. It's a matter of it being so ingrained in most people's minds that murder just isn't a consideration. You don't put your hand in a fire, right? It's just unthinkable, because you've always been told not to, and you understand what happens if you do it anyway.
We've become soft on violence against each other. We need to raise that standard.
This^^ is exactly my point. It's not about punishment, it's about protecting society. "Punishing" murderers as we do now punishes the taxpayers and the victim's families as well when the murderers' names come up for various reasons. If someone murdered a loved one, at the very least I do not want them to have the slightest chance of living any longer than absolutely necessary. Why should they have that opportunity?
There is absolute proof that executing murderers will reduce violent crime. It's called recidivism. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I've seen numerous cases where killers kill again once they are released or while in prison. They are also responsible for other violent crimes when released. I'd be willing to bet that the majority commit other crimes once released. Stop the madness. Remove them permanently.
My opinion, which is based on many sources, is that changing the mindset of the populace in general to "If I murder, I die" will soon cause a general reduction in all violent crimes. As it is, we have the three strikes law, which means I can commit three serious felonies (three separate murders?) before I will definitely be sentenced to 25+ years. Big deal. People who behave like this are beyond being concerned about jail time, and may also not care about dying for their crimes. So be it. It's not a matter of people thinking about their crime just before committing it. It's a matter of it being so ingrained in most people's minds that murder just isn't a consideration. You don't put your hand in a fire, right? It's just unthinkable, because you've always been told not to, and you understand what happens if you do it anyway.
We've become soft on violence against each other. We need to raise that standard.
So would you say then that maybe the issue in the US is not whether or not we should be using the death penalty on most murderers, but more what is being done with prisoners when they are incarcerated? It seems like maybe there's too much focus on just throwing them in a jail cell for a predetermined amount of time, and then releasing them on the world with the same mindset that got them there in the first place. If there was more of a focus on true rehabilitation, between trying to help the criminals understand why did they something wrong and helping them focus on creating a life when they do get out of prison.
While Texas is by far the leader in US executions since 1974 (492) that number is hardly a bump on a graph when compared to the tens of thousands of people murdered in TX during the same time frame. During a quick search to find these numbers I found numerous articles about "the death penalty hasn't improved the murder rate", which is the common fallacy. Having a death penalty obviously isn't working. Using the death penalty will, I'm convinced.
The number of murders in TX has been decreasing, overall, since 1990. Not sure what the correlation is, if there is one.
I went water skiing with a buddy, his girlfriend, and her 10 year old son. It came as no surprise that after being told 34985737398479847594875963 times to sit down, with no punishment for failing to do so, the son didn't sit down. Her threats had no teeth, just like our death penalty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
